Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Post Offices

Gregory Barker: What recent representations she has received regarding the future of the rural post office network.

Stephen Timms: We regularly receive representations about postal services and the network, and the recent announcement of additional funding for rural post offices has been particularly warmly welcomed.

Gregory Barker: Does the Minister understand the huge damage that the Government's imposed changes to the way in which benefits and pensions are paid at post offices will do to the rural post office network? Only this morning, I spoke to the postmaster in Robertsbridge, who told me, "I can't see us surviving—we will die on our feet." What is adding insult to injury and making matters even worse is the fact that the Government have delayed the marketing of the new Post Office card account until 24 March, just one week before the new system is launched on April fool's day. Will the Minister instruct those responsible to bring forward the marketing scheme to help at least to mitigate some of the damage that their proposals will do?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman might take the view that it would be a good idea to maintain ration book technology for benefit payment, but if so he is in a very small minority. Our view is that up-to-date technology is the way in which to assure the Post Office of a successful future. The Post Office card account is on track to be in use from April, as was always intended. It will be phased in over a two-year period, as we always said that it would be, and we will manage the migration carefully to ensure that the new arrangements do not inconvenience benefit recipients. The availability of that technology will mean that rural post offices, as well as post offices in urban areas, will be able to offer modern services in a way that meets the needs of today's customers. That is very good news for the Post Office.

David Drew: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but there is clearly something of a shortfall in terms of the information that is going out, and we need to communicate how the new system will work. One of the ways in which we could set about that is to work through the parish and town council network to ensure that those bodies are fully informed about the Post Office account and encourage their constituents to consider its opportunities and, more particularly, that they work closely with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to ensure that those services are in place not only now, but in the future.

Stephen Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to do everything that we can to communicate accurate information about how the new arrangements will work. I believe that new information will be in post offices from next week, and that once it is widely available people will recognise the benefits of the new arrangements.

Tim Yeo: Millions of vulnerable people will have heard with dismay the Minister's contemptuous reference to ration book technology. It comes ill from a Minister who has pretended to be concerned about the way in which benefits are paid to dismiss the anxieties felt by people in constituencies all over the country. Is it not the case that the best way to help rural post offices and their customers, including benefit claimants is, first, to make it clear that anyone who wishes to continue to receive their benefit in cash can do so and, secondly, to reverse the ridiculous policy of effectively preventing those Post Office customers who wish to open a card account from doing so? Only a Government who know nothing about business and care nothing about vulnerable people or rural communities would behave in such a disgraceful manner.

Stephen Timms: The requirement that people who wish to obtain their benefit in cash at the Post Office without charge should continue to be able to do so has been central to all the arrangements that we have put in place, and that will be the position once the change to automated credit transfer—ACT—happens from April.
	As to the difficulty of obtaining a Post Office card account, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from the fact that, on the latest figures, almost 40 per cent. of Veterans Agency benefit recipients have chosen to opt for a card account, so it is not impossible, as he suggests. We are ensuring that everybody can make the choice that is right for them.
	On rural post offices, in the last quarter of last year, the most recent period for which we have data, there was no net reduction in the number of rural post offices. It is probably the first time that that has been the case for at least 30 years, and it shows that the steps that the Government are taking are working.

Women Entrepreneurs

Wayne David: What recent measures have been taken to encourage women entrepreneurs.

Alan Johnson: A national strategic framework on women's enterprise is currently being developed by the Small Business Service, in conjunction with Prowess—Promoting Women's Enterprise Support—and a cross-Government policy group. That strategy will provide a cohesive, co-ordinated and long-term approach to women's enterprise in the UK.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to tackle sexist bias in the media? The Western Mail yesterday included a feature on Welsh entrepreneurs. It stated that Welsh business "men" were more positive and looking to build on their current success. It contained seven photographs of men but none of women.

Alan Johnson: I agree that treatment by the media is a barrier that women have to surmount. However, the media probably take their lead from other political parties, which have a small representation of women. Perhaps they could do their bit to help the media enter the 21st century.

Anne McIntosh: To prevent bias such as that displayed by The Western Mail and in the spirit of equal opportunity, will the Minister confirm that the same measures will be made available to male entrepreneurs?

Alan Johnson: I can confirm two things. The Government introduced maternity allowance for self-employed women for the first time. Many women entrepreneurs experience difficulty because their partners work and cannot find time to help with child care. From April, the Government will introduce measures to ensure that people's right to apply for flexible working allows the man in the relationship to help the woman entrepreneur better to fulfil her objectives and ambitions.

Credit Card Regulation

Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on credit card regulation.

Brian Wilson: Credit cards are regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which provides protection for consumers taking out an agreement. A review of the Act was announced in July 2001. As part of it, we will publish a consultation on the simplification of the credit advertising regulations in the summer.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier this week, MasterCard was exposed for ripping off retailers to the tune of hundreds and millions of pounds, and especially for discriminating against small retailers. The consumer ultimately bears the cost.
	The spotlight now turns on the misleading annual percentage rate figures, which make it impossible for consumers to calculate the cost of credit. I appreciate that a review is being conducted, but what is the time scale for it? It has dragged on endlessly. When will the Government act to give consumers the protection that they need?

Brian Wilson: This is not normally my territory, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The best way in which to deal with the unsolicited conflicting and confusing offers that come through our letterboxes is to file them in the bin.
	The outcome of the review will be published in the summer. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point that consumers must be protected and that having no consistent base of information confuses rather than protects. The industry is good at exploiting that trick.

Mark Lazarowicz: Can my hon. Friend do something in the review about the outrageously high rates of interest that many leading stores charge for their in-store credit cards? Some charge interest of 30 per cent. APR, which is absurdly high at a time of historically low interest rates.

Brian Wilson: Again, I have great sympathy with those comments. If consistent information were published, people would be better able to read across. Every trick in the book is used to inveigle people into costly agreements. There is a fine line between the nanny-state approach and providing decent protection from such misinformation or, at best, confusing information. That is the purpose of the review, and I shall convey hon. Members' views and their desire for urgency to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Melanie Johnson), who normally deals with those issues.

Mark Field: Does the Minister agree that the individual must take some responsibility for personal credit card debt?

Brian Wilson: That is precisely why I tried to establish a balance. We cannot offer individual protection to everyone who should understand the information but chooses not to. Many people are the authors of their misfortune. We are trying to strike a balance. People should be able to get information that allows them to compare different offers, see the interest rates that will be charged, and work out what they will end up paying. However, at the point where the state intervenes to ensure that that information is available, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot protect people from their own misjudgments.

Manufacturing Advisory Service

Michael Foster: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Manufacturing Advisory Service.

Patricia Hewitt: The Manufacturing Advisory Service is now up and running in England and Wales. It has been enthusiastically received by industry. Early progress reports are encouraging, and I shall publish details of that progress shortly.

Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that the west midlands has for years been the engine driving the UK manufacturing industry. Will she give the House more details on how the Manufacturing Advisory Service has benefited the west midlands and, in particular, on the 100 companies that have used the service in the past seven months?

Patricia Hewitt: More than 100 companies have received full-scale visits from the Manufacturing Advisory Service, and many others have received briefer advice. As a result, most of those companies have gained substantial direct improvements to their bottom line. I shall publish fuller details in the report. I agree with my hon. Friend that all MPs with manufacturing constituencies can help their manufacturing companies enormously by encouraging them to use this new, effective and practical service.

David Ruffley: On the subject of effectiveness, the Secretary of State will be aware of the new target announced by Mr. Prodi last week—that of reducing the European Union law rule book by 25,000 pages from its present 90,000 pages by 2005. What useless and moronic EU red tape would she cut to achieve that target?

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been at the forefront of encouraging the EU to commit itself to the better regulation discipline that we have in our country—

David Ruffley: What cuts?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Secretary of State answer.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to take advantage of President Prodi's initiative, but I shall continue to work with as many member states as possible to ensure that we get a sensible and satisfactory conclusion to the current discussions on the agency workers directive. In addition, I shall continue to ensure—through the new Competitiveness Council—that the new framework for the chemicals industry does not damage the competitiveness of our world-class chemicals industry.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept that many businesses and industries still do not know where they can get help and advice? The new advisory service will clearly do a welcome job, but many people do not know of its existence. What can we do to publicise it better, to make people aware of where they can get help and advice before it is too late and they go out of business?

Patricia Hewitt: The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), has already written to all hon. Members to inform them of the work of the Manufacturing Advisory Service. The manufacturing centres and the regional development agencies are all sending out mail and advertising the new service in their own regions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help by contacting manufacturing firms in his constituency to draw their attention to this new and excellent service.

Vincent Cable: Perhaps out of a naive belief that the Secretary of State's Department could offer an advisory service to manufacturing, I wrote an urgent letter to her three months ago on behalf of a delegation of trade unionists from Northern Ireland whose fertiliser factory had closed down. I asked her to work with her Cabinet colleagues and to approach the principal shareholders—the Irish Government and ICI. Is the Secretary of State aware that people from her office wrote to me this week to say that, after three months' careful consideration, they had decided to transfer the matter to another Government Department? If that is a measure of the quality of service on offer, the service should be closed down. What has happened leads me to question the effectiveness not only of the service, but of her whole Department.

Patricia Hewitt: I am extremely sorry if we have not acted as promptly as we should have done on that particular matter. I shall check exactly what has happened, and shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that that case has nothing to do with the new Manufacturing Advisory Service and the regional centres for manufacturing excellence, which, as I said, are operating throughout England and Wales and which we know from the earlier reports are delivering an excellent service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support them.

Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State confirm that more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since May 1997? That is an average of more than 2,000 for every week since Labour came to power. Has she discussed with the Manufacturing Advisory Service the need to improve Britain's deficit in traded goods, which is now at its worst level for 305 years? Has she discussed with the service how to improve business investment, which fell last year by more than any amount since records were first kept in 1966? Has she discussed with the service the slowdown in productivity? Productivity is now rising at only half the speed it was under the last Government. Does she recognise that, whatever the Manufacturing Advisory Service does, it cannot rectify the damage to Britain's manufacturers that Labour's policy of high tax and over-regulation is still inflicting?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about job losses and closures in the manufacturing sector. I do not remember any such concern when manufacturing was being destroyed under the Conservative Governments in two disastrous recessions.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the trade gap, but it is absurd to compare today's gap with the state of the economy under William of Orange, when it was about 100th the size of today's economy. I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not refer to the fact that world trade has been falling very fast because of the downturn across the world. He does not refer to the fact that the United Kingdom economy—both this year and forecast for next year—is growing faster than almost any other major economy. Instead of talking the British economy down, it is high time that he supported British business and British workers. If he is so concerned about them, perhaps he would like to explain to the House how his proposals for scrapping the regional development agencies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should not do that.

Fair Trade

Vera Baird: What steps the DTI is taking to promote the take-up of fair trade products by UK businesses.

Patricia Hewitt: I strongly support the aims of the fair trade movement. The Government have provided £500,000 to help the Fairtrade Foundation with its marketing campaigns. My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness recently held a meeting with business leaders to encourage greater take-up of fair trade goods. I have ensured that fair trade tea and coffee are available throughout the DTI, and I have encouraged my other Cabinet colleagues to do the same.

Vera Baird: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the major advantage of fair trade is to give a steady income to producers who would otherwise be totally hostage to the volatility of the commodity market? It will be fair trade fortnight from 3 to 18 March, which is why I am asking whether she intends to introduce any further steps to mark that occasion and further to stimulate and galvanise British business, which does not now immensely support fair trade throughout the world.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for those remarks. I entirely agree with her about the small but none the less significant part that fair trade can play in stabilising the incomes of some of the poorest farmers around the world. Just a few months ago, I brought together industry, other Departments, voluntary organisations and international institutions to consider how we could act more effectively on the underlying problem of low and volatile commodity prices. A working group between Government and industry is considering how we can do more on that.
	The other crucial action that we shall take, not only during fair trade fortnight but throughout the year, is to step up our efforts, as part of the Doha negotiations, to persuade our colleagues in the European Union to cut the tariffs that we put up against imports from developing countries. Those tariffs apply not only to raw materials but, crucially, to the value-added materials into which those countries now need to diversify.

Nick Gibb: Can the right hon. Lady explain why the Mediterranean partners of the Euro-Mediterranean trade partnership do not enjoy the principle of regional cumulation that the European members enjoy? Surely that is a fair way to promote trade and, therefore, peace in a difficult part of the world.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will be aware that in a recent speech in Brussels I set out—I hope clearly—the case for reform within the European Union, both of the common agricultural policy and, more broadly, of our tariff barriers. There is a great deal more that the European Union, and also the United States and other parts of the developed world, can do to ensure that very poor countries enjoy greater prosperity. That is, of course, good for them, but it also happens to be good for us.

Crispin Blunt: The House should find the Secretary of State's complacency on trade in her answers to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) alarming. The United Kingdom trade deficit is widening. The overall value of trade is falling. In the fourth quarter of 2002, the deficit in goods reached £10.7 billion. Given that desperate situation—[Hon. Members: "The question is on fair trade."] How can it possibly be right, given that desperate situation for British exporters and British businesses that want to take up fair trade products, for the Government to increase employers' national insurance?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman seems to jump from one subject to another.
	On the trade gap, the current account deficit in the United Kingdom in 2001 was 1.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. In 1989, under the hon. Gentleman's Government, it was more than 5 per cent. We will take no lectures on trade from the Conservatives, who did very little to promote fair trade.
	On national insurance contributions, there is widespread support among the business community and the public for the sustained increase in national health service spending that we propose and the Conservative party would cut. The issue for the hon. Gentleman is which hospitals he would shut, and how many doctors and nurses he would sack, with his refusal to match our investment in the NHS.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the fairest trade I can think of at this time, with a balance of payments of about £34 billion, is to increase the amount of coal produced in this country so that it offsets coal imports? Will she accept that that fair announcement for coal yesterday was sound as far as it went, and will she take another look to see whether we can save that wonderful fair place of Selby to ensure that we keep those three pits open? If we do that, it will be in sharp contrast to the lousy trade that resulted in every single pit in Derbyshire closing when the Tories were in power.

Patricia Hewitt: I absolutely understand and share my hon. Friend's anger about the brutality of what was done to the coalfield communities during the Conservative years. He knows from statements that I made to the House that last year we secured within the European Union framework the possibility of investment aid to the coal industry, which has always been excluded from regional selective assistance. I can confirm that we are making good progress on that and will make an announcement in due course.

Public and Employee Liability Insurance

John Smith: What representations she has received on the impact of increased premiums for public and employee liability insurance on small businesses.

Brian Wilson: The Department has received a number of representations from companies and their representative bodies concerning increased premiums for liability insurance. In response to the concerns raised, we have set up a review of the employers' liability insurance system, and the Office of Fair Trading is conducting a study of the liability insurance market.

John Smith: I warmly welcome that reply. The Minister will be aware of the letter that I received from Mr. Marco Camilleri of Camilleri Roofing, a highly respected and very successful family business in my constituency. Despite having an unblemished safety record and investing substantial sums in health and safety training, it faces massive increases in its liability insurance. Given the lack of any correlation between the risk posed by the company and the amount of insurance it has to pay, I am delighted to hear that the matter is to be referred to the Office of Fair Trading—especially in the light of public concern over the possibility that insurance companies are exploiting the current security environment.

Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend is right to raise that case study. Many companies are in the same position.
	There are clearly genuine reasons for increases in insurance costs. They are probably part of the price we pay for the litigation culture into which we are increasingly moving, and there have been substantial extraneous factors as well. Nevertheless, we should try to help businesses overcome the problem, and make sure that the insurance industry distinguishes between companies with the unblemished record described by my hon. Friend and those with no such record.
	The construction industry can help itself. Part of the problem is that the industry does not have a good health and safety record. We must reward companies that do well. I hope that the various inquiries that are taking place will prove helpful; in the meantime, the company mentioned by my hon. Friend can consult a reputable trade association or the British Insurance Brokers Association.

Michael Weir: A review is all very well, but what assurance can the Minister give Mackay Boatbuilders of Arbroath, in my constituency? Seeing what was happening in the fishing industry, the company sensibly diversified into maintenance of vessels such as oil supply ships. Despite having made no claims for 12 years, it has incurred a 400 per cent. increase in liability premiums. It has managed to pay this year, but is fearful of what will happen when the insurance must be renewed at the end of the year. Will the Minister undertake to meet the insurance companies immediately, and impress on them that increases of such magnitude are unacceptable in the case of small businesses?

Brian Wilson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been doing exactly that for months. I am pleased that he has discovered this issue from a letter from a firm in his constituency.
	As I have said, it is often possible for companies to obtain satisfactory terms through trade associations and the British Insurance Brokers Association, especially if they can demonstrate that they have a good health and safety record. There is, indeed, a potential advantage if the problem makes companies aware that such a record will secure beneficial premiums. It is necessary to separate the sheep from the goats, particularly in the construction industry, which can unfortunately be stigmatised by the existence of some very bad companies.

Betty Williams: My hon. Friend mentioned the investigation being conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of Fair Trading. Bearing in mind the problems faced by British manufacturing companies—including some in my constituency—in obtaining liability insurance, will he use his good offices when discussing the matter with other Departments to ensure that the study is completed without delay?

Brian Wilson: I take my hon. Friend's point. The issue is urgent for many very good companies, which is why the Government as a whole have responded in the way I have described, and why it is particularly important to involve the OFT. I am acutely aware from the sectors with which I deal—I think construction has been the worst hit—of the need to secure answers. As has been said, many companies have managed to deal with the hike in employers' liability insurance this year, but would be in difficulty if the same happened next year. I hope that through their good offices the Government can help to establish stability in a market that is normally extremely competitive. We would not normally intervene, but we recognise the problems and are trying to find solutions.

John Bercow: Is the Minister aware of the case, highlighted on 31 January this year by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), of the specialist small construction firm on the south coast that last year obtained £10 million-worth of insurance cover for £12,000? This year, it requires a minimum of £5 million-worth of cover simply to secure contracts from its regular customers, but can secure only £1 million-worth—a tenth of that which it previously enjoyed—for £8,000, two thirds of the previous cost. Given that 99.6 per cent. of businesses in this country employ fewer than 100 people, but employ a large number of people central to our economy and generate two fifths of our national output, does the Minister accept that on a cross-party basis—this is not a partisan matter—action is urgently required?

Brian Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman keeps making speeches like that, I might invite him to come and join us—but perhaps not.
	I do not think that the issue is party political, and I accept the validity of what the hon. Gentleman says. I assure him that, through the measures that I mentioned, we will continue to work with industry to facilitate a solution. For smaller companies in particular, the issue is extremely significant. Fortunately, the construction industry is experiencing a boom phase in most parts of the country, but that will not always be the case. We have to sort out the problem while conditions are good, so that it will not become an additional burden when conditions are more challenging.

EU Enlargement

Phyllis Starkey: What analysis her Department has conducted of the opportunities for UK businesses from EU enlargement.

Patricia Hewitt: British business has already benefited from the removal of trade barriers with the fast-growing economies of central and eastern Europe, and we expect that to continue with the expansion of the EU to create the largest single market in the world. My officials are completing a more detailed analysis of the opportunities and impact, and I intend to publish it as soon as possible.

Phyllis Starkey: Given the current benefits of markets in eastern and central Europe, as well as the potential increased benefits and the fact that many of our European Union competitors are aggressively expanding into those markets, will the Secretary of State detail the specific ways in which she is trying to encourage British businesses to take advantage of those opportunities?

Patricia Hewitt: About 14,000 British firms—mainly, I am glad to say, manufacturers—are already exporting goods to central and eastern Europe, and those opportunities are clearly growing. I have asked British Trade International, in its work in the regions, to ensure that when supporting more of our small and medium-sized enterprises to become exporters it draws their attention to those growing markets.

David Cameron: Enlargement of the EU is wholly welcome, but does the Secretary of State agree that it should not be accompanied by further enlargement of her Department? Will she explain why, when the Government do not own a coal, steel or car industry, it is still necessary to have eight DTI Ministers, a few of whom have joined us today? Is it a make-work scheme for Government drivers and private secretaries, or is there some nobler purpose?

Patricia Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that extremely serious question. I can assure him that all my Ministers are enormously busy. Indeed, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has ministerial responsibility for competition and consumer affairs, is currently in central and eastern Europe exploring with Government and business there the opportunities for closer investment and trade. I will continue to ensure that my Department operates as efficiently as possible, and delivers an even better service to business and consumers.

Broadband

Brian White: What steps her Department is taking to increase the take-up of broadband services.

Stephen Timms: Competition is proving an effective driver for the broadband market, as the UK now has the second largest number of broadband connections in Europe after Germany. In addition to providing for a competitive market environment, the Government's contributions include the new UK broadband taskforce, support for the broadband stakeholder group and the UK online for business advice programme, and the £30 million UK broadband fund.

Brian White: I am sure that the House will welcome the work of the broadband stakeholders group, and I am sure the Minister will endorse its recommendations. He knows, however, that there are areas such as mine, where every exchange is enabled but technical difficulties prevent take-up. There are other areas with other problems. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that Government Departments, agencies such as English Partnerships and regional development agencies, and the regulator will use innovative ways forward and not be hidebound by bureaucratic rules that prevent the take-up of broadband by various groups?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we encourage imaginative public-private partnerships and do not impede them. The changes introduced by the Communications Bill, with which my hon. Friend has been helping in Committee, will contribute. A growing number of initiatives are being taken forward, especially by the regional development agencies. The South East England Development Agency, for example, is giving grants to help small businesses in Hastings access satellite broadband and plans to extend those arrangements throughout the region. It is important that such initiatives be supported.

Roger Gale: What assessment has the Minister made of the number of small businesses, potential domestic users and others who are denied access to broadband cable in areas such as Birchington and Westgate in my constituency, simply because of the roll-out thresholds? Does he regard that as acceptable?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman has also played an important part in the Committee considering the Communications Bill, as its Chairman. We estimate that about 30 per cent. of UK households are currently not within reach of a terrestrial broadband service. Satellite broadband is available almost everywhere, which is why SEEDA's arrangements to help businesses access satellite broadband, which is more expensive, are potentially very important. As SEEDA rolls out those arrangements throughout the south-east region, the hon. Gentleman's constituents and businesses in his constituency may well be among the beneficiaries.

Ian Cawsey: In any discussions that my hon. Friend has with broadband providers, will he champion the cause of rural areas, where modern communications are so important? Broadband roll-out appears to be based on a set target of the number of people who register. That is inevitably more difficult to reach in a sparsely populated area such as the Isle of Axholme in my constituency.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we extend broadband to rural areas as fast as possible. BT has been reducing some of its thresholds recently. That is good news, but we also need to look at some of the more imaginative ways of extending broadband into rural areas. I was in Canada a couple of weeks ago, and heard about the way in which social enterprises are helping to deliver wireless-based broadband services to rural areas. Of course, in Canada the geographical challenges are much greater. It is important that we make progress in that respect.

Andrew Robathan: Given the Government's welcome stated aspiration to make the United Kingdom the most competitive and dynamic communications market in the world, and the role that Government Departments have to play in that by encouraging broadband connection, what target have the Government have set for broadband connection for schools? How many schools currently have broadband access, and when does he expect 100 per cent. of schools to have broadband access?

Stephen Timms: The Prime Minister announced last November that we expect every school to have broadband access by 2006. I believe that the current proportion is about 25 per cent. In all, we expect the public sector to spend about £1 billion on broadband over the next three years. Once the school in a rural community has broadband, at least in principle there is the possibility of spreading access to other users, so the public sector contribution will be important.

Aerospace Industry

Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prospects for the aerospace industry.

Alan Johnson: The UK aerospace sector's prospects are good, despite the many challenges that the industry faces. The aerospace innovation and growth team published its interim report recently, which suggested that there are real opportunities for future growth.

Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend will know that the high-grade steel produced by the Corus plant at Stocksbridge in my constituency is significantly dependent on the health and well-being of the aerospace industry for its markets. Its orders dropped by about a third following 11 September, and the effect is still working its way through the steel capacity of the plant. What further action will my hon. Friend take, especially in the South Yorkshire region, to promote aerospace and the markets in order to restore the health of that core manufacturing sector?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the very specialised steel production in her constituency. I am advised that, although there is cause for concern, the sector is not suggesting that major difficulties will be caused, partly because there has been huge investment on the defence side. In particular, the joint strike fighter is a huge investment made jointly with the USA.
	My hon. Friend will know about the development of the advanced manufacturing park, as the site is very close to her area. Significantly, Boeing is making a major investment to encourage and develop innovation in aerospace manufacturing. That is one of the most important developments that we have seen in this country for many years.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister may be aware that the aerospace industry is very important in my constituency, although a number of jobs have been lost in it over the years. The industry tells me that the best thing that the Government can do is ensure that it can compete on a level playing field. Fair trade was mentioned earlier, and it is extremely important that companies in Europe do not get help from their Governments in meeting start-up costs and winning orders when such help is not available to companies in this country. Will he ensure that we can compete on a level playing field? Will he also make sure that companies involved in joint projects get paid on time when they do the work?

Alan Johnson: I agree that aerospace, of all industries, needs a level playing field. That is fairly obvious. In terms of the issues that the sector faces, the innovation and growth team is very important. I stress that that is a body not of politicians but of the industry itself, and it is considering all the problems that it faces with a view to the future 20 years hence.
	On the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions with regard to assisting our aerospace industry, Governments of all persuasions have seen the need to support aerospace because of the particular problems that it faces. The innovation and growth team has a very important role in that respect and its report will be published in May. Since 1997, £1 billion of launch investment has been put into Rolls-Royce and Airbus. From talking to aerospace companies, I find that they are very appreciative of the efforts that we have made in this country—this is not merely a party political point—because they have made our aerospace sector second only to the US in the world. While we should look at our difficulties and consider how to resolve them, we should not downgrade the successes that we have had in this country.

Social Enterprise

Louise Ellman: What support she is giving to social enterprise.

Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I launched a three-year strategy for social enterprise in July. We are now working on the delivery of that strategy and the co-ordination of its delivery across government.

Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the support given to social enterprise by his Department, including the Phoenix fund, works together with support from other sources, including the Merseyside special investment fund, which has recently set up a special section devoted to community businesses? Will he support the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill, which is currently being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), as a very important way of supporting social enterprises?

Stephen Timms: I agree that the Bill is important. Social enterprises are making very good use of the support provided from the Phoenix fund. That includes a number of enterprises in my hon. Friend's constituency; I have noticed the Cats Pyjamas and Train 2000 projects in particular. She is absolutely right that that support needs to be allied to support from other sources. Let me also draw her attention to the community investment tax relief, which was introduced a few weeks ago and which I think will be significant in tilting the playing field in favour of commercial viability for investments in some social enterprise projects that would not otherwise be viable.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister accept that socialism and enterprise are mutually incompatible? If the terms being used are new Labour speak for not-for-profit bodies and charities, why is his Secretary of State not campaigning for the removal of the evil congestion charge, which is undermining the work of charities in central London?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The great attraction of social enterprise is that it combines the creativity and energy that characterise the entrepreneurial private sector at its best with a strong commitment to public service. Bringing those two together creates a powerful combination from which the whole country can gain.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Social Enterprises

Tony Cunningham: What steps she is taking to support women in setting up social enterprises.

Patricia Hewitt: We are already supporting women as well as men to set up and run social enterprises through a variety of activities. This will be strengthened through the implementation of the social enterprise strategy, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness referred a moment ago.

Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I have some very successful social enterprises in my constituency, which are fully supported by my local council, Allerdale borough council. What additional support can be given to women establishing social enterprises in rural areas? These women suffer not only from the normal problems of access to finance but from peripherality, rural isolation and general access to support mechanisms.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad to say that there are already successful social enterprises in rural areas, such as Rascals, the after-school care club in Northumberland that was set up by a group of mothers to provide child care in that rural area. More generally, the Small Business Service is already delivering—through the business links network—the farm business advisory service, which is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Countryside Agency. This is helping women and men in rural areas to move into new enterprises—both social enterprises and for profit.

Caroline Spelman: The fact that we have just dealt with the subject of social enterprise during Trade and Industry questions and that we are now dealing with it again underlines the point that having the important cross-cutting role of Minister for Women shackled to departmental questions is not working. It allows me, however, to comb through the Government's document, "Social Enterprise: a Strategy for Success", which states that social enterprise can contribute to "socially inclusive wealth creation". Women are not mentioned once in this document. Nor are they mentioned in the social enterprise strategy work plan for July 2002 to October 2003—very inclusive, that! Will the Minister admit that women and social enterprise were just an afterthought?

Patricia Hewitt: No, of course not. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that she does not think that Women's questions are useful. Perhaps she would like to join me in discussions with the House authorities to create a longer Question Time on women's matters. I would be delighted to do that. Our business support strategies and our social enterprise strategy are, of course, designed to support women as well as men. The variety of examples in the social enterprise strategy includes a number of companies—I have just referred to one that provides child care services—developed and run by women.

Chris Mole: Given the important role that women can play in social enterprises, will my right hon. Friend explain how the business support services for which the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible can provide support to ensure that social enterprises have the management and financial skills and other capabilities of mainstream businesses?

Patricia Hewitt: We have looked particularly at the needs of social enterprises. In some respects—access to finance, for instance—they are pretty much the same as for any other business. In other respects, such as the legal framework in which they operate, they have quite different needs. Through the regional development agencies and through business links we are ensuring that business advisers have the necessary specialist knowledge to support entrepreneurs who want to set up a social enterprise. I am glad to say that a number of the regional development agencies are already creating support networks designed to encourage social enterprise.

Sandra Gidley: Social enterprise, according to the Minister,
	"can free people to become enthusiastic participants and owners of public services."
	I totally support that sentiment. The latest figures clearly show, however, that women are not becoming enthusiastic participants in managing public services. The number of public appointments of women has remained disappointingly static, at 34 per cent. over the last year, which shows a failure on the part of the Government. Will the Government give their full attention to this issue, or shall we continue to see part-time results from a part-time Minister?

Patricia Hewitt: Oh dear. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that in 1991 only 23 per cent. of public appointments were held by women. We succeeded in increasing that to one in three by March last year, but change takes time. Unless we take positive action, it will not happen fast enough. That is why, last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and I launched a series of seminars and programmes to encourage thousands of women to put themselves forward for public appointments. The hon. Lady will understand that only about 15 per cent. of public appointments fall vacant each year, but I have no doubt, given the hugely enthusiastic reception we received at those events, that many more women will come forward and be appointed.

Women Entrepreneurs

Meg Munn: What progress has been made towards creating a strategy for increasing the number of women entrepreneurs.

Patricia Hewitt: As my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness said a few minutes ago, a national strategic framework on women's enterprise has been produced by the Small Business Service and is currently out for consultation. This strategy, which will be launched in April, will strengthen business support for women who want to start and grow a business.

Meg Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate Yorkshire women, who are not only the most entrepreneurial women in the country but are more entrepreneurial than Yorkshire men? Are there lessons to be learned from Yorkshire women's businesses, such as the Sheffield-based public relations company, diva, which recently won three awards, that could be included in the Government's strategy?

Patricia Hewitt: I readily congratulate Yorkshire women generally, and diva in particular, which is a business that I know, on their great entrepreneurial success. I also congratulate my colleagues in business links, in south and west Yorkshire, who are developing successful networks of women entrepreneurs. The fact remains that if we could get women in the rest of the country to set up new businesses at the same rate as men, we would have an extra 100,000 new businesses in Britain every year.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that entrepreneurs—whether men or women—are, by their very nature, highly self-motivated, imaginative and problem solving, and that those traits cannot be created by a Government strategy?

Patricia Hewitt: I am afraid that it is typical of Conservative Members to imagine that Government can have no effect on that. We find from the entrepreneurs and small businesses that we help that—as with the Manufacturing Advisory Service we discussed earlier—they welcome that support and want more of it. We are delivering it.

UK Companies (Women Employees)

Colin Challen: What recent discussions she has had with UK companies who employ women in developing countries.

Patricia Hewitt: I have regular meetings with British companies that have operations overseas. Promoting corporate social responsibility both at home and abroad, including ethical employment practices, is a high priority for this Government.

Colin Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that she would agree that an expansion in free trade should not lead to an expansion in sweatshops and the exploitation of women in developing countries. Sadly, in many cases, the reality does not match the rhetoric. One example is the Gina Form Bra Company, which operates in Thailand and has been condemned by that country's National Human Rights Commission. The company oppresses trade unions, but it employs 1,100 women. It also supplies a major, well known British high street retailer, as do many other such companies. Will she have a talk with British retailers about where they source their materials from and about eradicating the practices that I have mentioned?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am aware of the situation that developed at Gina Form Bra Company in Thailand and I know that the Labour Minister in the Thai Government has already taken action on it. Once I have received more information, I will certainly discuss it with the British retail companies concerned and with my opposite number, Dr. Adisai, the Minister for Commerce in Thailand, whom I had the opportunity to meet recently, and agree with him on the need for free and fair trade across the world.

Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady said earlier that she has introduced Fair Trade tea and coffee in the Department of Trade and Industry, on which I congratulate her. Is she aware of the John Lewis Partnership initiative of encouraging trade in Fair Trade wine, and will she undertake to meet Steve Esom, managing director of Waitrose, and Sir Stuart Hampson, chairman of John Lewis Partnership, who have done so much to encourage Fair Trade retailing in the UK, and the fair employment of people overseas?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to congratulate John Lewis and Waitrose on that initiative. I have great admiration for those companies, which are, of course, owned by their employees. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness recently met the organisation to discuss corporate social responsibility.

Airport Security

Oliver Letwin: I hope that the Home Secretary might be willing to make a statement to describe his assessment of the current situation at Heathrow, and the Government's response to it.

David Blunkett: Since Tuesday, there has been an enhanced level of security throughout the capital. As the Metropolitan police said in its statement, which was made on behalf of all those engaged in the operation, this was likely to be most visible at Heathrow airport. At the request of the operational services, it was agreed that, as in the past, the armed services could be called on for preventive and protective measures.
	It may help the House if I set the events of this week in the context of what was said in my statement of 7 November, and if I recall key points. As I made clear, we face a real and serious threat. We know that al-Qaeda will try to inflict loss of human life and damage upon the United Kingdom. That is why we have explicitly pointed to some of the most obvious risks, such as to transport infrastructure, and why the Government have taken a range of measures to improve public protection. In doing so, we have been mindful of the importance both of keeping the House informed, and of keeping continuity of operational policing and security measures.
	The House will forgive me if I quote the most relevant passages of the statement of 7 November. I said:
	"Aviation security measures remain at an enhanced level following the attacks on September 11th and the government keeps these measures under constant review. From time to time additional protective steps are being taken, and will continue to be taken as the situation demands."
	The statement continued:
	"Where threats are specific, we seek to thwart them. Where they are general, we seek to analyse them, and take whatever responses we believe to be necessary to ensure the protection of the public."
	This is precisely what we have done this week, and will need to do from time to time in the future. If the situation were to change, I would inform the House. If there are specific incidents—as tragically occurred in January, with the death of Detective Constable Oake—I will come back to the House. However, I do not believe that it is responsible to provide a running public commentary from the Dispatch Box on every end and turn—any more than previous Governments did during the past 30 years, when facing the threat from Irish terrorism.
	As with those Governments, our view is that we must do nothing to undermine the work of the police and the security services. We have to make fine judgments, which must ensure the safety of sources of information. The terrorists must not be able to assess what we know and how we know it.
	We must give the public the information that they need to protect themselves and others. We did precisely that with the statement last Tuesday morning. However, we must also avoid frightening people unnecessarily or causing the sort of economic and social damage that does the work of the terrorists for them. The public must be alert but not alarmed. That is why I have consistently—and again this week—facilitated confidential briefings for the shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
	Finally, I again pay tribute to the work of our police, security and armed services. We owe them our deepest gratitude for the continuing vigilance, courage and professionalism that they have shown.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for coming to the House and making a statement. I join him in the tribute that he pays to those who put themselves at risk to protect us.
	In his statement, the Home Secretary repeated the sentiment expressed in the letter that he sent me this morning. The right hon. Gentleman wrote:
	"I do not believe that it is responsible to provide a running public commentary from the despatch box on every turn and development in the operational measures taken to protect the country's security."
	I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is far better to set the precedent of measured and comprehensive statements in the House than to allow a "running public commentary"—to use his words—to be provided by confused and conflicting signals given by other Ministers, on the airwaves and in press briefings.
	As far as the substance of the Home Secretary's statement is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has, as he knows, the full backing of the Opposition. On the basis of what he has said today, and of other information that has been vouchsafed to us, we believe that the actions taken by the Government, the security agencies, the military and the police are justified, responsible, appropriate and proportionate. However, I remain concerned, as I have been over the past nine months, that the level of general preparedness to deal with and contain the effects of any major terrorist attack is not yet fully adequate to the task.
	There is worrying evidence, whether we look at the protocols governing inter-service co-ordination at local level or at the level of equipment and training of personnel in key positions, that, although preparations are being made, the pace of action is too slow. When those signs of lack of preparedness are allied to insufficient levels of prevention—for example, in relation to the security of ports and nuclear power stations—one begins to have the uncomfortable feeling that there is a degree of inertia in Whitehall. [Interruption.]
	Labour Members may tut; they are ill advised so to do. It is the Opposition's duty to ensure that pressure is applied to the Government to ensure that the Government do everything necessary to protect the British public. I fear that we may still be at the stage where no one wants to upset the Whitehall apple cart, and where no one in Whitehall wants to offend anyone in the nine Government Departments with responsibility for the various aspects of civil protection.
	I ask again, as I have asked for months, whether it can possibly be right for there not to be a senior Cabinet Minister who attends to these matters from early in the morning till late at night and whose remit is to galvanise Whitehall into action. Would not the existence of such a Minister also ensure that the Government were able, in the proper way and through the House of Commons, to speak with one clear and unwavering voice about matters that affect us all?
	Despite Labour Members, we in the House today are ultimately all on the same side of the same barricades. We all share the desire to protect the public and ourselves properly. We look to the Government, in what may be troubled weeks and months ahead, both to instil an appropriate sense of urgency in the official machine and to ensure that public trust and public confidence are engendered by a flow of accurate and timely information.

David Blunkett: It is clearly the right of the Opposition to question the Government when the Government are clearly at fault. It is clearly the job of the Opposition to raise immediate issues, as they have today, briefly, as part of the shadow Home Secretary's statement. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this private notice question to raise issues that are not relevant to the immediate situation and that were not put to you, Mr. Speaker, in the terms of the question.
	I am happy to answer to the House on the wider issues of preparedness, general security and resilience. As I indicated, we have regularly made statements to the House on those issues, as we will again in a few weeks' time, when we debate the renewal of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	This afternoon, I want to rebut those critical elements that have divided the House in a way that was never the case during 30 years of Irish terrorism—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not grant this urgent question to give hon. Members the opportunity to shout across the Chamber. This is a very, very serious matter and I will not tolerate shouting. If the shouting continues, the urgent question session will cease. I say to hon. Members: do not shout across the Chamber at a time like this.

David Blunkett: I seek entirely to refute the allegation that our security and policing services are not prepared, or are not in a position, to secure our well-being, and are not securing our well-being, because patently they are. The exercise being undertaken this week is precisely to achieve that goal. It is to ensure that evidence provided is acted upon, that measures are proportionate and that the work being done secures the population against the danger of threat at this particular moment. The security services for which I am responsible and the policing and anti-terrorist branch for which I am responsible are not only acting in a responsible and accountable way but, as I indicated at the end of my statement, are doing their job with great professionalism and courage.
	I shall deal with two of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). First, I believe that it is right to report to the House on what is correctly the role of politicians. I am aware that, in opposition, it is sometimes difficult to get one's case across, so constant reiteration of a requirement that someone should come to the Dispatch Box is an understandable tactic. We had 18 years in opposition so we are aware of the frustrations. However, for a Cabinet Minister—me or anyone else—to come day by day to the Dispatch Box to answer for the operational activity of our security and policing services would be unnecessary and dangerous, in terms both of the alarm that it would cause and of the unnecessary hype that it would inevitably involve.
	Secondly, to detach the responsibilities of a Minister from the security services and policing, including the anti-terrorism branch, would clearly be responsibility without power. It would mean someone having to answer on areas for which they were not responsible and would detract from the accountability that we all carry as Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Health, who are on the Treasury Bench today.
	The allegation of confusion or mixed messages is entirely due to the misreporting—[Interruption.] I hear calls in relation to my right hon. Friend the Labour party chairman, who was entirely misquoted, and who said absolutely nothing that has not been said before in terms of the raising of consciousness of danger consequent on what happened on 11 September 2001. It is precisely because of what happened then that the measures we have taken have been put in place, and the operations, which will have to continue when necessary and will have to be repeated from time to time, will be put in place.
	If every time we take measures to protect the public, enhance our level of preparedness and engage our security police and where necessary our armed services, there are calls for debates in the House or statements at the Dispatch Box, we shall damage rather than enhance the chances of catching those who threaten our lives and those who would put our nation in danger.
	I appeal to the official Opposition, who have done nothing but shout throughout this statement, to act with a degree of responsibility and to continue the consensus that we have had—until their party leadership has clearly instructed their spokesmen to do otherwise.

Simon Hughes: We are very grateful that the Home Secretary has made his statement, and I am very grateful for the briefings I have periodically received, which I respect, and whose confidentiality I respect.
	I entirely agree that it is not the Home Secretary's job to provide a running commentary on such important matters, and that it is of course of paramount importance that nothing be said that compromises the intelligence and other activities we need to carry out as a nation. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's judgement or his integrity in the decisions he takes. I hope that that shows that there is a common basis on which we are willing to proceed.
	Given that it was exceptional to see troops deployed on the mainland of the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it was appropriate— exceptionally—to describe such exceptional measures by coming to Parliament, because that gives him the opportunity to make the authoritative statement that is proper to his office on behalf of the Government, both to avoid confusion and to allow any appropriate questions to be answered?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any decision as to what military provision is made is a matter operationally under the control of the military rather than the Government, that the military will respond as it thinks appropriate, and that it is a matter on which it does not take direction from politicians?
	Can the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Government—he and his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport, in this instance—are taking in hand the recommendations of the Lord Carlile report about increasing security at all our ports, our airports and seaports, and are taking on board suggestions, including that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), about improving airport security, which everyone agrees is of paramount importance?
	Lastly, could the right hon. Gentleman have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, so that arrangements can be made—arrangements which I know they are thinking about—both to give the public in written form in the next few weeks clear information about how they should respond, or where they should seek further information, and to assure us that at local government level the necessary resources and finances are in place for any necessary civil response to the exceptional situation which is, sadly, threatening our country at present?

David Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the measured way in which he presented his questions and his case.
	I can confirm that the operational responsibility for calling upon the armed services rests primarily in this case with the police. It is for them to determine whether they think that would be appropriate, and that will be the case in the future.
	The armed services have been brought in from time to time on the British mainland when requested operationally. It is precisely because of the split between political and operational responsibility that I made my earlier remarks about appearances at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else. That must be understood unless we are to change the relationship with the police and armed services in such circumstances. Not all those in the House, because of the time they have been here or the responsibility they have held here, will understand that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does.
	Yes, we do believe that it is necessary—and it will be from time to time—to repeat the kind of exercise that has taken place this week, including exercises to establish precisely the preparedness to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. That will occur over the months and weeks ahead, and I think that people will welcome it and treat it with responsibility.
	Yes, we do need to ensure that there are means to inform the public well and for them to be able to make contact, and we will put that in place. Yes, we are taking seriously what Lord Carlile has suggested. As with the Wheeler report on airports—we referred to this in the House not so long ago—we are taking additional measures to ensure security, as we are doing this week.
	Yes, we will need to enhance and work with local government on its civil contingency roles, and we will return to that in debates in the House. We readjusted the funding to £90 million, as the hon. Gentleman will know, precisely to ensure that we reflected the concerns that he has raised.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to hon. Members that I require questions, not statements, and those whom I call should ask one question.

Stephen Pound: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, when my constituents awoke earlier this week to find 2,000 police officers and military around the site of their biggest employer, they would have been as disgusted as I am today to see that this matter has been dragged into party political point scoring? May I ask him, please, bearing in mind the exigencies of the circumstances that he describes, to realise that the rumour mill has started to grind and in the vacuum, without information, rumours will spread? Will he please assure the House that when he is able to give us the information he will do so?

David Blunkett: Statements are put out by the operational commanders. That has always been the case is incidents of this sort, precisely to avoid politicians getting embroiled in second-guessing or directing the operational activity. The information will be, and always has been, put out. At 6 o'clock on Tuesday morning, an agreed statement was put out by the Metropolitan police, and that statement stands. Of course, when there is further information, they will release it, as they always do, including when any measure is taken that involves arrests. I have always reported to the House when those arrests have involved the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Graham Brady: My constituents who live adjacent to Manchester airport, or those who work there, are already concerned not because of anything said in the House, but because of the pictures of a military presence at Heathrow airport that they saw on their television screens. What they want from the Home Secretary is reassurance that appropriate security measures are being taken at and near Manchester airport and other regional airports, and that the concentration is not just on the highest profile target, particularly given that, by increasing security at Heathrow, it must surely be possible that softer targets elsewhere might be sought.

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has ensured that there is enhanced security and continues to keep that under surveillance. May I lighten things a little? I do not want to do what might be described as a Suffolk, Coastal—a Gummer—but one of my sons flew from Manchester airport at breakfast time this morning. So I would certainly assure everyone that it is safe to use our airports—that was the thrust of the question—and that they should not be fearful of doing so, precisely because the measures have been put in place and the security has been provided to ensure that they can go about their business free from fear.

David Winnick: Is it not absolutely essential for the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, all Members of Parliament to get across the point that mainstream Islam—no less legitimate than any other religion—is in no way involved with those fanatics, and that those fanatics are far removed from Islam and the teachings of Islam; and to recognise that, post 11 September, the war against democracy is more likely to be a long one than a short one?

David Blunkett: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. Not only have the Muslim Council of Britain and the overwhelming majority of Muslims, as citizens, provided us with the backing that we need to do the job and the intelligence needed to ensure that they are protected alongside all who live beside them, but they have also been horrified that any of their communities should be engaged at all with terrorist acts.
	I want to make it clear this afternoon that those who provided information on the potential for danger used the term "end of Eid" in a way to describe the timing with which they believed action would be taken. All of us deplore the fact that anyone would have chosen the end of any festival—whether Eid, Christmas or any other—to have engaged in threats of that sort.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether and, if so, when it was necessary to invoke the formal arrangements for military aid to the civil power? Does he agree that, when military aid to the civil power is invoked, it is entirely appropriate to make a formal statement to the House?

David Blunkett: I made it absolutely clear that the police requested the support of the military.

Michael Portillo: Requested?

David Blunkett: I am being queried. Yes, requested—and that request was responded to. That is normally the case, with the consent of the Prime Minister, me and the Secretary of State for Defence to agree to that request. When that request is made again and there is sufficient concern that such measures are required, of course it will be granted. This was undertaken at the beginning of the week. I am sure that the House would respect and understand the fact that chapter and verse are not helpful in these circumstances, nor is it necessary for holding the politicians or the operational commanders to account.

John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of irresponsibility to use an urgent question on the specific subject of airport security to identify alleged gaps in the security of this country in a number of areas?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is out of order. I have granted the request for the urgent question, and that should be enough.

Francis Maude: My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is the least partisan of politicians. This should not be, and is not, a matter of party politics, but it is the duty of hon. Members to question Ministers not just when they are at fault but sometimes to find out whether they are at fault. Although the emphasis is perfectly properly on Heathrow airport, will the Home Secretary give an indication of what steps are being taken at other airports—such as Gatwick, close to which many of my constituents live—to ensure that, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the attention of any possible terrorist is not diverted to softer targets?

David Blunkett: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question; his right hon. Friend normally is the height of consensuality. That is why this afternoon has been so remarkable. In the second part of his question, the right hon. Gentleman asks me to specify what steps have been taken at Gatwick. I am sure that, having been in government, he will, on reflection, ask himself one question: if I answered specifically, would it help or hinder those who are intent on carrying out terrorist acts there or anywhere else across our country?

Tony Banks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and, indeed, on the Government's actions, which, by all accounts, have broad public support. Will he tell the House whether any consideration has been given to using military personnel to assist the civilian authorities on the London public transport system?

David Blunkett: It is the same answer: if those operationally responsible put in requests for assistance from our armed services, they will be considered in precisely the way we have responded this week.

Michael Portillo: May I ask the Secretary of State to accept that the House would like to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government at this time of intense national danger, but may I ask him and his fellow Ministers to work harder to win the confidence and trust of the House and the British people? The Secretary of State will perhaps accept that the dodgy dossier has done great damage. May I ask him to accept that there should be no further attempts to spin where national security is involved? May I ask him, on reflection, to agree that when a Minister makes a decision such as that made this week on invoking military power a clear statement should be made, at the earliest opportunity, by the Minister responsible to the House of Commons, not by anybody else and not in any other place?
	Finally, can I ask him why he believes that it is right for the United States to have a single Minister responsible for the fight against terrorism, but absolutely wrong for the United Kingdom to do the same?

David Blunkett: As the right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Defence I am slightly taken aback by his request that there should be a Dispatch Box statement every time there is a request for, or engagement of, the services.
	I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who travels a lot, will understand the federal nature of the United States. As Tom Ridge has told me, there is no equivalent of the internal security service in the United States, there is no direct responsibility for the connection of any such security service to policing—because policing is both federal and local—and the connection that they are now seeking to make precisely replicates the responsibilities that I carry, for the reason that the security services and the police are under one jurisdiction. To separate them out so that they are under separate jurisdictions would achieve exactly the opposite of what the Americans are seeking to achieve. I am absolutely amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the most enormous respect—and, at the danger of upsetting my Back Benchers, long-standing liking—should have got it so appallingly wrong.

David Cairns: As responsibility for policing and civil defence issues are largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, whereas matters of troop deployment and intelligence remain reserved to this House, can my right hon. Friend assure me that close liaison is taking place at the highest levels between Ministers at the UK level and Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that constituents of mine flying from Scottish airports enjoy, where appropriate, the same levels of security as those flying from airports throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?

David Blunkett: Yes, I can give such an assurance. Indeed, some of us will be flying into those airports over the next few days. I assure my hon. Friend that in these circumstances the reserve power on security and on security at airports remains with Ministers in this House.

Teddy Taylor: In wishing the Home Secretary well in the difficult and complex task that he faces, may I ask him to indicate, in view of the experience of al-Qaeda in the use of chemicals and gas, whether there are stocks of protective clothing in different parts of the country that could be made available if required?
	If there is a devastating decline in the numbers of people using aeroplanes for travel, will the Government do what they can to ensure that assistance is given to the appropriate companies?

David Blunkett: I am very pleased that the travelling public have responded so well and that there have been no discernible reductions in those using aircraft.
	On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for CBRN—chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons—and Departments, including the Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, are mindful that facilities are and will be made available.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Home Secretary accept that my constituents who live immediately to the west of Heathrow under the flight path, many of whom work at Heathrow or for the airlines that service it, are deeply concerned about the current security situation? Will he also accept that that was made considerably worse yesterday by the conflicting statements from the chairman of the Labour party? Can the Home Secretary give us an absolute assurance that we will not have further conflicting statements, which only add to the panic?

David Blunkett: I have made the position absolutely clear in relation to the statements that were made and the responsibility that is carried. I say to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents that had we not taken action—had the operational services not taken the steps that were required—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Blunkett: Had we not authorised the steps to be taken, and had the operational services not acted as they did, the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would have had a great deal more to fear than if we had not taken steps to reassure people that the necessary action had been taken. I really do not understand, given that we have sought to protect the public—so far, thank goodness, successfully—why the nature of this afternoon's questioning has been so antagonistic.

Angus Robertson: While we accept the seriousness of security announcements, does the Home Secretary accept there is still a breakdown of trust between the public and the Government following the comments of the Labour Party chairman and the publication of the dodgy dossier? What does he think will help to restore the public's trust in accurate security assessments, which are of critical importance?
	Following the precedent of the confidential briefings that were made to the main opposition parties in Scotland and Wales on the situation in Afghanistan, will he do the same on this important matter, and include the parties in Northern Ireland, so that all of us in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are fully informed on domestic security arrangements?

David Blunkett: Where appropriate, those with responsibility who represent political interests and parties in this House will of course be updated. The one thing that would really restore confidence, however, would be if people did not mislead the public, inadvertently or deliberately, about what has or has not been said, what has or has not been inaccurately reported or, above all, which particular aspect relates to which particular threat. The idea that any reference to a document provided for background on Iraq should be made in this statement on the threat that is now being dealt with by the operational services in relation to domestic security would actually damage that trust and security. So my answer is, "Look at your own responsibility before you ask me about the responsibility of others."

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will please give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 24 February—Second Reading of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill.
	Tuesday 25 February—Progress on remaining stages of the Communications Bill.

Michael Fabricant: Hear, hear.

Robin Cook: I am glad that that measure is so consensual.
	Wednesday 26 February—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 27 February—Motions relating to the Draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2003 and the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003, followed by debate on flood and coastal defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 28 February—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 3 March—Motion to approve the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in Force of Sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, followed by debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the terrorist bombings in Bali on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
	Is the right hon. Gentleman yet able to give any indication when Budget day will be? There is a growing mystery about that. I do not know why the Government are so coy about it, although I think that I can guess, but surely it is now way past the time by which the House should, in all decency, have been told the date of Budget day, to give not only us, but all those with a genuine interest—which, I suppose, includes everybody in the nation—proper notice. I would appreciate that, as, I think, would the House.
	The newly established Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department has just announced that it is to investigate the role of the Lord Chancellor. I suppose that it will particularly consider his hybridity, because, as we know, he occupies a unique position straddling the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Michael Fabricant: Like a colossus.

Eric Forth: I will get my hon. Friend into Hansard by saying that he just said, "Like a colossus." I do not think that we should speculate on the exact stature of the Lord Chancellor at this stage—let us leave that to the Select Committee.
	When the Select Committee has deliberated on the matter and presented its conclusions and recommendations, will we have the opportunity for a full debate on the Lord Chancellor's role and the Select Committee's views? That would be helpful.
	Given the quickening pace of events at the United Nations, NATO and domestically, will the Leader of the House assure us that, were it necessary to recall the House next week during our short recess, arrangements are in place to do that at short notice and keep hon. Members kept fully informed?

Robin Cook: Let me respond immediately to the last point. I do not envisage that it will be necessary to recall the House, but should such an eventuality arise, the option remains open. We have shown ourselves willing to recall the House on previous occasions. However, I would not wish people above us to take that response out of context as implying that there is any reason for believing that it will happen.
	It is to the Government's and the House's credit that we have created a new Select Committee to cover the Lord Chancellor's Department. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the Department's many functions, which fully merit monitoring by a Select Committee. I welcome the increase in the ability and the capacity of the House to undertake its task of scrutiny. Of course, we will await the Committee's decisions with interest. It is premature to give an indication of the Government's response before an inquiry has begun, but we are co-operating with the Liaison Committee in determining the Select Committee reports that it would most like debated in Westminster Hall or the Chamber.
	I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I take careful note of the fact that the Opposition have again demonstrated their enthusiasm for the Budget and an opportunity to rehearse the Government's success in securing the lowest inflation for a generation, the fastest growth in the G7 and—as announced in the past week—a further decline in unemployment. I shall ensure that the Chancellor is aware of the Opposition's keen interest in debating such matters.
	I read yesterday's debate with interest. The shadow Chief Secretary got into difficulties in his interventions on the Chancellor. He appeared to experience problems in describing the way in which the Conservatives would achieve the 20 per cent. cut in public spending without affecting health and education. I am grateful that the shadow Chief Secretary at least agreed that the Government could share in the report when he writes it. It is surely in the interests of the Opposition as well as everyone else that he has adequate time to finish it before the Budget.

Paul Tyler: I remind the Leader of House that it is important not only to keep hon. Members informed of dramatic developments in Iraq, but to give the House an opportunity to express a view. Does he recall that, last Thursday, I pointed out that the combination of tomorrow's inspectors' report to the Security Council and our absence from this place next week might mean that matters move quickly? I ask him again to consider carefully the timing, in Government time, of a full debate and vote on a sensitive, developing situation, especially the possibility of extending the time for further inspection or of a pre-emptive strike, with or without United Nations support in the form of another resolution.
	Last week, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	"there will be an opportunity for the House to consider the matter when we return on the week beginning 24 February if that is necessary."—[Official Report, 6 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 440.]
	Many hon. Members found that reassuring. However, the Secretary of State for Defence said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch),
	"I caution him against the insistence on requiring a substantive vote of the House before any military operations are conducted . . . If I may explain: it is obviously vital to retain the element of surprise if military operations become necessary."—[Official Report, 6 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 459.]
	Will the Leader of the House give us a cast-iron guarantee that if there is any question of the UK Government supporting a second resolution, making an input into it or taking a different view, supporting American action and putting British troops into the area of hostility, the House will not only be informed but have an opportunity of making a decision? Surely that is the least that a United Kingdom Parliament should ask.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is fair minded and I would not wish anyone to read into my use of the word "informed" anything that suggests that I do not fully understand the importance of the House expressing a view. Any comments that I made in response to the possibility of the House needing to debate the matter in the near future embraces the opportunity and right to express a view. We have always made it plain that we want the House to give its approval, through a substantive motion and a vote, to any action. Should there be a second resolution, I anticipate that we would want to ensure that the House has the opportunity to support it as soon as possible. In return, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to support any second resolution and its consequences.

Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend said that it would be inconceivable for British troops to be committed without a vote in the House of Commons. Let me press him on that. Does he accept that many Labour Members believe that going to war using prerogative powers and without a prior vote in the House of Commons to authorise action would be a betrayal and would split the Labour party and finish the Labour Government?

Robin Cook: Of course, my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to express his views as frankly and robustly as he wishes. However, he is not entitled to tamper with the views that I expressed. I said that it was inconceivable that any British Government could commit British troops without the support of the House of Commons. That remains the case. We have committed troops on many previous occasions without a substantive vote. I do not imply that we intend to proceed in that way on this occasion, because we do not. We want the full-hearted support of the House of Commons and we want that to be registered in the way that is open to it. I remind my hon. Friend that we held a debate on the previous Security Council resolution, which the House overwhelmingly endorsed. We continue to follow that approach. Should the inspectors' report require a second resolution, we will bring the matter to the House.

George Young: On Tuesday, the House of Commons Commission and the Standards and Privileges Committee published their response to the report by the Wicks committee on standards in public life about self-regulation in the House of Commons. I appreciate the many pressing issues that confront the Leader of the House, but will he find time before the Easter recess for a debate on the response?

Robin Cook: Of course, I am well aware of the report from the Standards and Privileges Committee. I studied it with interest and I fully understand the importance of those matters. I welcome the fact that there was no great contention about our positive response to the Wicks report. Most of its recommendations are welcome and we can respond to all of them. Taken with the report of the House of Commons Commission on the parts that affect it, we have the basis for an important debate. I hope that we can arrange it before Easter and I want the House to make an early decision on those matters.

Wayne David: The Leader of the House knows that, a few weeks ago, an excellent debate was held in Westminster Hall on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union decision-making process. Given that the Convention on the Future of Europe is nearing the end of its work, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the role of national Parliaments in EU decision making?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue about which we shall hear much more in the weeks ahead. It will be some time before the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe is complete and even longer—

Greg Knight: Good.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman obviously wants the fullest possible period of reflection on the Convention's work. It will be some time before it is put before an intergovernmental conference for further decision. I am sure that the House will wish to discuss the matter and that there will be opportunities to do that. I welcome the fact that the Convention has provided us with a new innovation in our proceedings—

Julian Lewis: A new innovation?

Robin Cook: I am grateful for the correction of my pleonasm. The Convention has provided an innovation that is welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. We now have a Committee to which our representative rather than a Minister reports. It may be desirable for it to meet again at some point.

Peter Viggers: May we have an early debate on immigration procedures? I ask because my constituency has been devastated by the news that the Government are considering using the HMS Daedalus site in Lee-on-the-Solent as an accommodation centre for about 400 young male immigrants. We had been relying on the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), who had said:
	"We will be working closely with the local community as we develop our proposals and go through the planning process."
	However, the Minister has this morning refused an invitation to attend a public meeting on Saturday or to send an official from the Home Office to explain the position. She is also on record as saying:
	"I do believe that an accommodation centre is not a detriment to a local community."
	In view of such matters, may we have an urgent debate? I would also suggest that the Minister be replaced by a speak-your-weight machine, because then we might get the truth.

Robin Cook: I shall overlook that last remark, which was not worthy of an hon. Member of many years standing in this House.
	Ministers who apply themselves diligently cannot necessarily be at any particular meeting on a specific date, especially at the short notice to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Home Office and the Government will want to work closely with the elected representatives of the community and with the local authority to ensure that what is being proposed is fully understood.
	We have debated this policy issue on a number of occasions, and there has been broad agreement on both sides of the House that there should be reception and induction centres for those who seek asylum in Britain. I understand that the Conservative party has a policy that all such people should be put in such centres, irrespective of where they have come from or the case that they make for entry. We cannot adopt such a policy—and the Conservatives would make it universal and compulsory—and at the same time object every time a site for a centre is identified.

Harry Barnes: On 19 December, in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment, I raised a constituency case about a trading scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office, promised to ask the Department of Trade and Industry to respond to my concerns. I am sure that he has done that; however, nothing has emerged from the DTI. My constituent and I have put great pressure on the DTI on this issue, which has been going on for almost three years now. What we are now after is a small deputation to try to sort the matter out.

Robin Cook: I regret to hear that my hon. Friend has not heard from the DTI. I know that my officials are diligent in pursuing issues that are raised with me during business questions. I assure my hon. Friend that they will pursue this issue as soon as the questions are over.

Michael Fabricant: May we have a debate on capacity of Britain's jails in relation to the Transport Act 2000? Congestion charges start on Monday and we are all supposed to be able to text our fees to the congestion charging agency. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I and 800,000 others are receiving error messages? The server has apparently collapsed. If I send my money via a text, I may well be liable to an £80 fine. I will not pay that £80 fine. I will not be present for future debates because I will probably be carted off to jail with another 800,000 people. When may we have a debate on this issue—before I am carted off to prison?

Robin Cook: In a previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman invited me to visit Lichfield cathedral. It would give me even greater pleasure to visit him in prison.
	On the question of electronic communications, I was entertained to see in this morning's press a report of an internal e-mail at the Conservative party, saying that Monday's introduction of the congestion charges would provide
	"a golden opportunity to get a few quotes in the papers."
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having anticipated that golden opportunity. However, I hope that one of the quotes in London's local papers will come from a Conservative Green Paper of 1996, which said, in relation to congestion charging,
	"Much research . . . has confirmed the Government's view that price signals are a highly efficient way of influencing transport demand."
	That Green Paper was introduced by a Conservative Government in which a Minister responsible for transport was the gentleman who is being put forward by the Conservative party as its candidate for mayor. Conservatives should stop playing politics with this and admit that they also contemplated congestion charges.

Julia Drown: Given the huge concerns in the country about possible military conflict in Iraq, could some of the business that the Leader of the House has announced for the week after recess be replaced by a debate on that possible conflict? If that is not possible, may we at least have an extended Question Time on the issue, so that some of the scenarios for which military conflict may be ruled in or ruled out would become clearer to the public?

Robin Cook: We are fully aware of the immense interest in the House in Iraq and in the international events surrounding it. That is why, following business questions, we will hear a further statement on Iraq from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
	The business for the week after recess is important. For instance, at last week's business questions, there was demand for a debate on Wales and that is partly why we have included such a debate in that week's business. However, should matters change, and should there be a more pressing requirement for us to address Iraq that week, business is always flexible and that could be done. I do not expect that need to arise, but should it arise we would consider the need for the House to debate such matters.

Patsy Calton: Will the Leader of the House explain the legal and historic basis for the royal prerogative so that my constituents may understand the powers of the Government to commit troops to war without a substantive vote in this House?

Robin Cook: In British history, troops have repeatedly been committed without a substantive vote in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friends will allow me, I was about to say that, on this occasion, we have already had one substantive vote and it is our intention to have a substantive motion, with a further vote, should the situation require it.
	I would say to hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches that, for the past two months, they have pursued the issue of process as the sole issue of concern in relation to Iraq. At some point, they will have to come clean on what they will do if there is a second resolution. They can perpetually ask us what we will do if there is no second resolution, but we are entitled to clarity from them on what they will do if there is.

David Chaytor: The Government have announced their intention to publish within the next two to three weeks the long-awaited energy White Paper. In view of the increasing importance of diversity and security of energy supply—especially in the context of the deteriorating international situation—will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made on the White Paper and that there is an early opportunity to debate it?

Robin Cook: I understand the considerable interest of the House in energy matters, which have been raised frequently during business questions. I believe that the White Paper will be of fundamental importance to our commitment to international environmental targets. These are matters of great importance and significance and the Government will ensure that they are treated accordingly.

Eleanor Laing: Last week the Deputy Prime Minister announced his intention to allow plans for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built in the south-east of England. My constituents, not surprisingly, are extremely alarmed. They would like their opinions to be heard in this place. Although I appreciate that this matter cannot take precedence over the security and international matters that have been discussed today, will the Leader of the House please make time—Government time—for a debate on this matter in the near future? A possible title would be "The Concreting of Essex".

Robin Cook: I am sure that all the hon. Lady's constituents who are seeking a house will have noted that she is opposed to having any more houses in her constituency or locality.
	We had a full statement on this issue, followed by lengthy exchanges involving the Deputy Prime Minister.

John Bercow: But not enough.

Robin Cook: I agree that one can never have too much of statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that he will wish to return in future to keep the House further informed.
	It is important that we address what I would have thought all hon. Members from the south-east would acknowledge to be an acute housing shortage that has resulted in sharp rises in house prices. There is a risk that those house prices in the south-east will be beyond the pocket of essential public service workers.
	As to concreting over anywhere, I am proud that this Government—ahead of time, thanks to the efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister and others—have hit their target of ensuring that 60 per cent. of new housing is on brownfield sites. We will ensure that we keep a balance.

Glenda Jackson: Given that the House adjourned before 5.45 pm on Tuesday, that it could have adjourned at least an hour earlier yesterday and that this afternoon's debate is on the Adjournment of the House, why does my right hon. Friend find it so difficult to find time for an urgent debate to make true the Prime Minister's statement that decisions whether—not when—to commit British troops are a matter for our Government, our House of Commons and our people?

Robin Cook: Today's debate is not on the Adjournment, although that is the technical basis on which it will proceed. It will be a debate about education for 14 to 19-year-olds, and I do not think that my hon. Friend should trivialise its great importance to the future of the economy or to the future of our young people. I am very pleased that the Government have introduced new initiatives on the education of 14 to 19-year-olds. I would have thought that she would welcome them and would wish the House to have the opportunity to discuss them fully.
	On Iraq, I have made it plain that we have debated the subject before, and we will debate it again. I shall certainly wish to make sure that the House has every opportunity to reach a decision.

Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House recall the very large anti-nuclear protest marches of the early 1980s, some of which he may even have supported before he modernised himself? Does he recall that the largest of them, in October 1983, was shown by scientific aerial survey to be only a quarter of the strength of the 400,000 turnout claimed? On the return of the House, may we have a ministerial statement—if necessary a written one—as to what measures will have been adopted to ensure that Saturday's protest is accurately counted so that false claims cannot be made in the way that they are traditionally always claimed for such protest marches?

Robin Cook: I really think that the time has come to draw the curtain on how many people attended the demonstration in 1983.
	As to the forthcoming demonstration on Saturday, it is, of course, part of the tradition of such demonstrations that there should be a variance in the estimates coming from the police and those taking part. I do no not wish to interfere with that tradition.

Gwyn Prosser: Tomorrow marks the 15th anniversary of the start of the P&O seafarers' strike, which started in 1988 and went on until 1999. The seafarers were striking in support of safer conditions on cross-channel ferries, and the result was that 2,000 people were sacked simply for taking legal, official industrial action. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the plight of the sacked Dover seafarers, who lost their livelihoods, received no compensation and who continue to be blackballed to this day?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling a very worrying period of industrial relations. He is right. Some people will still be suffering to this day because of what happened on that occasion. The Government have introduced legislation to try to make sure that we have fair play for the work force and we continue to make sure that we review it to see what further fresh legislation may be required. I am sure that the matter to which my hon. Friend referred will be of particular significance in his constituency and will, no doubt, be remembered during the anniversary.

Pete Wishart: May we have an early and urgent debate about the cause of free speech, especially because we learned this morning that it is the Labour party—and not the police—that is denying the use of microphones at the anti-war rally in Glasgow on Saturday? Does the Leader of the House not realise that this attempt to silence the views of the overwhelming majority of Scots people does nothing other than undermine the Prime Minister's case? The public see that decision as the worst type of anti-democratic control freakery. Will the Leader of the House now have urgent discussions with his colleagues north of the border and down here to ensure that free speech prevails in Glasgow on Saturday?

Robin Cook: I am sure that free speech will prevail. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of the ability of megaphone speech to prevail, and the issue at stake is the right of those inside the exhibition centre to hear those who are speaking inside rather than to be drowned out by those speaking outside.

Tony McWalter: Tomorrow's report by Hans Blix may have as its consequence that the Government and the United States Government think that there has been a material breach. The report would hence be an occasion for war. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that it might be sensible to make plans for an urgent recall of the House next Tuesday?

Robin Cook: I have said to the House that I will continue to keep under review whether there is a requirement for the House to meet in the event of substantial developments. However, I think that my hon. Friend outlines a timetable that is getting a bit ahead of itself. There will, indeed, be a report from Hans Blix this Friday, but I do not know whether that will precipitate a second resolution. If it does, the nature of the Security Council is such that I am not sure that the resolution would necessarily be concluded in the single week that we are away. We can certainly return to the matter when we come back. As I have said, I will keep the matter under review, but I do not, at present, anticipate a compelling requirement for us to return.

Nick Hawkins: The Leader of House will be aware that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), I have a huge number of constituents who work at Heathrow. I am therefore concerned on their behalf about what happened yesterday. A moment ago in the House, we heard the Home Secretary quite deliberately giving the impression that the questions of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), were improper. The Home Secretary also sought to give the impression that he had come to the House voluntarily to make a statement and had not been dragged here as a result of the Opposition's request for an urgent question that was granted by Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary also deliberately ignored every question from any part of the House that made it clear that the mischief yesterday resulted from the fact that we all heard a party official—someone who sits in the Cabinet only because he is chairman of the Labour party—making misleading statements on television and panicking the public. Can we have an urgent debate about the contempt for the House and the misuse of television by Ministers who talk about security when they are not the Cabinet Minister responsible for security?

Robin Cook: My almost obvious conclusion from that question is that the hon. Gentleman was not called in the previous exchanges.

Nick Hawkins: I was present as shadow security Minister.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming what I have just said. He did not have an opportunity to make a point on the previous statement, so he has made it now.
	I would not be living on the same planet as reality if I were to suggest to my right hon. Friends that, when they appear at a broad-ranging broadcast interview, they should refuse to answer certain questions. I doubt very much whether Jeremy Vine would be terribly impressed if they waved to him a letter from the Leader of the House instructing them not to answer questions on certain issues. Of course, it is in the nature of being a Minister in a Government, who are accountable to the public, that one is asked a range of questions that are not necessarily within one's brief. The comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio have been taken ludicrously out of context.
	The evidence is that there was a real risk, and an appropriate response was made. The decisions about what the appropriate response should be were taken by those responsible for operational deployment and they were fully backed by the Home Secretary and others in the Government. That is entirely the right thing to do. However, I deprecate attempts by members of the Opposition to turn this into a party-political argument.

Kelvin Hopkins: In the light of the critical report of the rail regulator that was published today and in which he challenges the rail network's costs and the Strategic Rail Authority's plans to scale down rail investment—including indefinite deferral of the Thameslink 2000 scheme, the cuts in rail freight grants and other serious concerns—will my right hon. Friend make time for a serious debate about the future of the railways? In it, we could discuss, among other things, the desirability of bringing them back into full public ownership.

Andrew MacKinlay: That is a good idea. Shall we agree to it now?

Robin Cook: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) has at least one supporter in the House. However, I do not advise him to put the issue to a snap vote.
	The rail regulator has repeatedly expressed his concern about the mounting costs of carrying through the important renewal of the railway structure. It is important that the rail industry should get costs under control. One of the reasons that we want costs to be brought under control is that there is more investment than at any time in the past decade going into the rail industry. That will continue for the decade of the 10-year plan, at the end of which we will have a better rail industry that is better able to cope with the demands on it. That will take time, but my hon. Friend should not seek to give comfort to the Opposition by suggesting anything other than that record sums are going into the industry, and rightly so.

Alistair Carmichael: Could the Committee on Modernisation undertake an early assessment of the impact that the change of hours is having on the work of Committees? To illustrate that, may I point out what happened in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday? As a result of the Government timetabling a statement—which was an exercise in reheating yesterday's dinner—and two Divisions, there was little time for Back-Bench contributions to the debate. Indeed, the entire Scottish Conservative group was left with only three minutes in which to put his case. Those who supported the Leader of the House—I am included in that—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] Those of us who supported him did not do so on the basis that our views would be cast in stone for the next 200 years.

Robin Cook: I admire the hon. Gentleman's confidence that his views will be held in stone, or any other form, for the next 200 years. Obviously we will be required to revisit matters that need detailed amendment and adjustment. One of those is the discovery, which I think surprised many members of the Scottish Grand Committee, that the Committee does not have the same Standing Order provision as Westminster Hall to enable the Chairman to prolong a sitting if it is interrupted by a Division. That is a legitimate matter for consideration and we should take account of it.

Tom Watson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his gracious and tactful reply to my question on sitting hours last week. As he has had a week to sleep on it, has he managed to take 40 winks to consider early-day motion 607?
	[That this House regrets the revised sitting hours; notes that the business of the House has been adversely affected; and calls for a review of the arrangements.]
	It has been signed by more than 100 colleagues and calls for an urgent review of procedures. Can he tell me how many Members it would take to allow a debate on the new working arrangements?

Robin Cook: I rather thought that the tact of my reply fully matched the tact of my hon. Friend's question last week. I notice that there are a number of signatures to the early-day motion, although not quite as many as voted against the proposition, which was carried convincingly and comfortably in the House on 29 October.

John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on support for enterprise? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although the Ernst and Young enterprise survey published last month showed that the proportion of entrepreneurs who believe that the Government attach a high priority to entrepreneurship had doubled over the past 12 months, ministerial pride in that fact should be qualified by the reality that the rise is from 1 per cent. of respondents to 2 per cent.?

Robin Cook: I am encouraged that the trend is in the right direction. We must continue to raise it towards 100 per cent. as fast as possible.

Malcolm Savidge: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 716 on British participation in a war in Iraq?
	[That this House does not believe that British forces should be required to participate in a war against Iraq unless all of the following conditions are met (a) that there is clear evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to peace, (b) that there is a substantive motion of this House authorising military action, (c) that there is an express resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations authorising the use of military force against Iraq and (d) that all other policy options have been exhausted.]
	Although some names were too late to include on today's printed copy, by last night—in just one and a half days—it had attracted the support of more than 100 Members of Parliament. I suspect that that is just a partial reflection of the grave concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and probably not just on the Back Benches. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be an appalling denial of basic democracy if we were effectively committed at the UN to pre-emptive war while Parliament was in recess?

Robin Cook: I understand the continuing interest in Iraq. It may be for the convenience of the Chamber to move on to the forthcoming statement on Iraq so that some of the points can be debated in substance rather than tangentially through me. Although I have the fiercest attachment to the prerogatives and rights of the House of Commons, we cannot tell the Security Council that it cannot debate a matter or take a decision because the British Parliament happens to be in recess for a week. Should any decision be reached in New York, we will, of course, put that to the House at the earliest opportunity. As I said, we stand ready to recall Parliament should that be required, but I do not anticipate that happening at the present time.

Sandra Gidley: We have just had the regular 10 minutes of questions to the Minister for Women, but their focus is narrow and many submitted questions are transferred. Will the Leader of the House give some thought to supplementing those questions with a regular cross-cutting question session to Ministers in various Departments along the lines of the recently successful questions on youth issues?

Robin Cook: I entirely agree that the recent experiment in cross-cutting questions on youth issues was a great success. [Interruption.] Well, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was not there, because it attracted the largest attendance that Westminster Hall has seen.

Eleanor Laing: I was there.

Robin Cook: Members who attended found it a success. At a time when we are not always held in the highest of regard and esteem outside this place, I was encouraged by the fact that the young people who attended also regarded it as a success and were impressed by it.
	On the questions to the Minister for Women, I shall reflect on the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). As there is provision for that in the Chamber, it would be more appropriate to continue those arrangements than to transfer them to Westminster Hall. However, I shall convey her enthusiasm to my right hon. Friend to have as many questions as possible and, in particular, not to have questions transferred.

Meg Munn: May I, too, draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 607 on the change in hours? Does he agree that we would expect working practice changes in, for example, the fire service to be given more than a bare 14 days before firefighters expressed concerns about any problems encountered? Will he counsel hon. Members to have a little more patience with the changes and, dare I say, a little more imagination in resolving the teething problems, which would occur in any organisation that took on such changes?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend expresses herself with great clarity and persuasiveness. Tact suggests that it would be wrong of me to try to improve on such an excellent statement.

Iraq

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Iraq. I thought that it would be helpful, given that the House is in recess next week.
	The Security Council will meet in New York tomorrow to hear the latest reports from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, and the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed el-Baradei. I will be joining fellow Foreign Ministers for that meeting.
	United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, which was agreed three months ago, placed the onus squarely on Iraq to co-operate fully and actively with United Nations inspectors in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. It gave Iraq a final warning: comply with the UN's terms immediately or face "serious consequences." European Union Foreign Ministers expressed clear support for that goal last month when they declared unanimously that
	"the resolution gives an unambiguous message that the Iraqi Government has a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully."
	It is also worth recalling that at the summit in Prague, NATO Heads of Government—every one of the 19 present—explicitly endorsed resolution 1441. They said that it was a final opportunity and that serious consequences would follow.
	Tomorrow's briefing will be the fourth update delivered by Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei. The comprehensive reports that they delivered on 27 January, just over two weeks ago, painted a disturbing picture. Most damning of all was Dr. Blix's observation that Iraq
	"appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance...of the disarmament which was demanded of it".
	Dr. Blix concluded that the Iraqi declaration submitted on 7 December, in accordance with resolution 1441, was
	"mostly a reprint of earlier documents,"
	and did not
	"contain any new evidence that would eliminate"
	unresolved
	"questions or reduce their number."
	The central premise of Iraq's so-called disclosure—that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction—was, and remains, a lie. Nor was there any admission of Iraq's extensive efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction since the final UNSCOM inspections in December 1998 when it was effectively excluded from Iraq, as the inspectors made clear in their final report to the Security Council in February 1999.
	In their update on 27 January, Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei said that Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 bombs, which could carry up to 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent. It had also failed to account for 8,500 litres of biological warfare agent and a large amount of growth media, which could be used to produce about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax. They said that the 12 chemical rocket warheads unearthed by UNMOVIC inspectors were potentially, in Dr. Blix's words,
	"the tip of a submerged iceberg".
	They said that Iraq had failed to disclose the 3,000 pages of documents discovered not in an office but in the grounds of the private home of an Iraqi scientist, relating to the nuclear weapons programme of that country. They said that despite repeated requests from UNMOVIC and the IAEA, in accordance with resolution 1441, all interviews with key Iraqi personnel were being conducted in the intimidating presence of official "minders". They also said that in contravention of United Nations resolutions, Iraq had developed missiles that had been tested at ranges in excess of the 150 km limit specified in UN resolutions.
	I remind the House that the British Government drew attention to Iraqi work on such missiles in the dossier that we published last September. We look forward to hearing in detail what Dr. Blix has to say tomorrow, but if media reports are correct, the al-Samoud missile programme is clearly in serious breach of Iraq's obligations. We would expect rapid action to eliminate any such illegal programme.
	In drafting resolution 1441, Security Council members took pains to set two clear tests for further material breach by Iraq. In the first operational paragraph, they declared that Iraq
	"has been and remains in material breach"
	of a score or more of obligations that date back to 1991. That is still the case. As for the two tests, a further material breach would have occurred, first, if Iraq made "false statements" or "omissions" in the declaration that it submitted on 7 December, and secondly, if it failed
	"at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation"
	of resolution 1441. The briefings by Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei, as well as Secretary Powell's presentation to the Security Council last week, leave no doubt that Iraq has failed to meet both tests. The conclusion is therefore inescapable: Iraq is in further material breach of resolution 1441. We shall take full account of the reports of the chief inspectors tomorrow.
	The prospect of military action causes obvious anxiety—as it should—here in the United Kingdom, here in the House, among our allies and in the region, and of course among the people of Iraq. I still hope and pray for a peaceful outcome to the crisis, but that will be possible only if we maintain unrelenting pressure on Saddam Hussein, including the threat of force, rather than casting around for excuses to delay. It is only through the pressure we have been exercising that we have got as far as we have in exposing much more of the danger represented by Saddam Hussein's regime, and exposing his lies and deception as well. If the international community lost its nerve now, that would significantly undermine the UN's authority and make the world a much more dangerous place, as dictators got the message that international law consisted of mere words and nothing else.
	The Franco-German proposals announced this week to bolster the inspection regime will not deliver the assurance that the world needs about Iraq's weapons. Those proposals, I am sorry to say, are unrealistic and impractical. They shift the burden of proof from Iraq—which is where the Security Council has said it must be—to the inspectors, and they send Saddam the signal that defiance pays. What is the point of sending three times as many inspectors simply for Saddam to deceive them? What purpose is served by that? As Dr. Blix himself said on Monday,
	"The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the active co-operation of the Iraqi side, as we have said many times."
	Those are the words of the chief inspector, not my words.
	If the inspectors were to say that Iraq was actively co-operating, one might see a possible case for more inspectors; but I ask my hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, to consider what it is like to inspect anything without the co-operation of the organisation being inspected.
	Iraq was found guilty of possession of weapons of mass destruction 12 years ago. The role of inspectors has always been to verify Iraqi compliance—this being based on the premise of Iraqi compliance—and not to engage in a
	"game of catch as catch can",
	to use Dr. Blix's term.
	I am glad to learn that other proposals attributed to the French and German Governments, such as the establishment of a no-fly zone over the whole of Iraq and the insertion of armed blue-helmeted UN troops, have now been officially denied. Had those proposals been implemented, they would have required an even higher degree of co-operation from the Iraqi regime than was required by resolution 1441. The creation of a no-fly zone over the whole of Iraq would have required the complete grounding of the Iraqi air force and its regular inspection to that end, and the insertion of blue-helmeted UN troops in a benign environment would have required all armed troops from Iraq to retreat to barracks. That too would have been the subject of inspection by the United Nations.
	Let me now turn to the position in NATO. In mid-January, discussions began in the alliance of the need for contingency planning to cope with possible threats to the security of a NATO ally, Turkey, in the event of military action in respect of Iraq. Sixteen NATO allies, including 14 European nations, supported that entirely reasonable and responsible proposal simply to set in hand some military planning for very limited defensive mutual assistance. France, Belgium and Germany have resisted on the ground that a NATO decision on that very limited mutual assistance would somehow pre-empt any Security Council consideration of Iraq's further material breach. Faced with that deadlock, on 10 February Turkey requested consultations under article 4 of the Washington treaty. The discussions continue, with the United Kingdom fully supporting the efforts of NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson to achieve consensus.
	I remind the House again that at the Prague summit, less than three months ago, NATO leaders pledged their full support for resolution 1441.
	Given the obvious risks and the possibility that military action may prove necessary, we are keeping under very close review the safety and security of both visiting and resident British nationals in the various countries of the middle east. We make assessments on a case-by-case basis for each country in the region, and will make announcements as necessary.
	Even at this late stage, armed intervention is not inevitable. A peaceful resolution of the crisis remains in Saddam Hussein's hands. Full Iraqi compliance with the terms of Security Council resolution 1441 will deliver the outcome that the United Kingdom and the entire international community wish to see: an Iraq that no longer poses a threat to its neighbours or to the region. In the absence of full compliance by Saddam Hussein, however, United Nations inspectors will not be able to fulfil their mandate to verify Iraqi disarmament. Resolution 1441 warns Iraq to expect "serious consequences" in that event. By now, even Saddam Hussein must be under no illusions: that can only mean disarmament by force.

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, is in China, and apologises for not being here today. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for giving us a copy in advance.
	The statement comes at a time when diplomatic relations between the United States and both France and Germany are, to put it mildly, scratchy. Public opinion here suggests that people are losing trust in the Prime Minister, and, crucially, we may be witnessing historic strains on the stability of a number of institutions that we have taken for granted for decades, such as NATO, the European Union and even the United Nations itself. However, we offer the Government our full support in their efforts to enable NATO to send missiles to defend Turkey. While we can understand America's fury at the attitude of France and Germany, we ask the Foreign Secretary to join us in urging our counterparts in Congress not to be drawn into recriminations against them. Whatever their feelings, we surely do not want relations between western democracies to slide into disarray.
	The Foreign Secretary has said that we must wait for Dr. Hans Blix's statement to the United Nations tomorrow, and of course he is right. Any decision about Iraq requires an agonisingly difficult moral assessment. Resolution 1441 enshrines a judgment, which we share, that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if we are on the brink of military conflict, as seems likely, the issue must above all be approached with honesty and clarity? Given that resolution 1441 is fundamentally about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons, and given the doubting mood of public opinion, do not talk of Iraqi links with al-Qaeda and links with terrorism, conflicting comments from Ministers, and the publication of an utterly substandard dossier only divert attention from the main issue and severely dent the Government's credibility?
	A fortnight ago, a second UN resolution seemed a dead cert, but now it seems touch and go. The Foreign Secretary made no mention at all of a second resolution in his statement. Is it his intention still to go for one, and if so, when does he expect it to be voted on? If Hans Blix tomorrow reconfirms that Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441, the Foreign Secretary said that "rapid action" will be taken, apparently, from what he said, by force, but how rapid is rapid? I think the Foreign Secretary and I agree that we respect those who take a principled stand against any military action. We also hope that they respect our shared view that we should not resile from implementing UN resolution 1441. Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it is impossible to have any respect for a party leader who says that we must wait for Hans Blix, and then announces in advance of tomorrow's statement that he is going to go on the anti-war march on Saturday? After sitting on so many fences at once, it is no wonder that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party finds it so difficult to walk straight.
	If Saddam Hussein goes, it is the clear intention of all involved in removing him to replace his regime with a democratic one if at all possible. But is it not a fundamental concept of any democracy that any Government should be accountable for their action to their electorate either directly or through Parliament; and is it not therefore a fundamental right of the British people that any UK military action should be subject to a substantive motion in the House of Commons?
	The Secretary of State for International Development has so far refused to reveal any plans she may have for humanitarian aid to Iraq, and in The Guardian today she says that there will not be any aid anyway if there is not a second UN resolution. It is therefore doubly worrying that the Foreign Secretary made no reference to a second resolution today. At the very least, will he say what the Government's plans are for humanitarian aid, even if his Cabinet colleague will not? I welcome the news this week that Ariel Sharon has had talks with Abu Ala from the Palestinian Authority. Will the Foreign Secretary once again confirm our shared view that any action in or around the middle east needs to go hand in hand with a revival of the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, without which there will never be stability in the wider Arab world?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I understand the absence of his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary.
	Going through the points that the hon. Gentleman made, I accept that it is wise if we want to resolve this matter and ensure the cohesion of those key alliances of which we are members—NATO and the European Union—and, above all, maintain the authority of the United Nations, that we should seek to lower, rather than raise, the temperature of relations with countries with which we have great friendships, both within Europe and across the Atlantic.
	On the issue of the dossier, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that yesterday. We accept that parts of the document should have been made clearer, but I tell the House and the hon. Gentleman that the document itself was accurate in every particular—the part that was claimed to be from intelligence was from intelligence. As regards the second resolution, the reason why I did not explicitly mention the prospect of one is that we are waiting to hear what Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei say. It is our decision as to whether or not we move a second resolution, and of course one remains in prospect. My view is that, rather than speculate about whether or not we move a second resolution and about what it says, having heard what Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei said on 27 January, we should wait and see what they say tomorrow, then make our decisions. Subject only to recesses, our decisions will be reported to the House as quickly as possible. I also reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at business questions—the fact that the Security Council meets at times other than when the House is sitting means that we cannot always ensure that decisions made there coincide exactly with our sittings.
	The hon. Gentleman made some interesting remarks about the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he goes on this march, but I have read all his statements carefully. The more I read them, the more completely confused I believe he is. For those who believe either that he is against any military action in Iraq or that he believes, as he said on 25 November in the House, that military action can only take place if there is a second resolution, I commend to the House the transcript of his interview on the "Today" programme on 27 January, in which he openly admitted that while a second resolution was his preference—he prayed the Prime Minister and myself in aid of that assertion—he then said that we might have to go without a second resolution—[Interruption.] Well, we look forward to further elucidation.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) referred to a substantive resolution. I agree, and always have done. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that we have made a policy of introducing substantive resolutions in the House. That happened on 25 November, when we had a very good debate. There was a clear choice before the House—rather than a choice of whether we went home or not, there was a choice about the policy that we should follow. The Government's policy, which was supported by the Opposition, was backed by a vote of about 450 to 80, which I take to be a mandate on any basis.
	As for a substantive resolution on military action, again, we have made it very clear first, that there will be a substantive resolution and, secondly, that it is our earnest intention and hope that that should take place in advance of any military action save in the one circumstance in which we judge that our troops would be put at risk. On such an occasion, the arrangement, as happened with the Conservative Government in January 1991, would take place a few days afterwards. That, too, however, would be very much second best. The overwhelmingly important issue, apart from all the other issues, is that the legitimacy of any action that we take as a British Government should be endorsed by the House, so that if our troops go into any action and place their lives on the line, they do so in the knowledge that they have the support of the British people as represented in the House.
	Finally, on the middle east peace process, I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the paramountcy of pursuing that process, which is why the Prime Minister and I were determined to go ahead with consultations with the Palestinian Authority notwithstanding the banning by Mr. Sharon of attendance at that meeting. On humanitarian aid, I do not recognise the description of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Department for International Development is already providing millions of pounds to Iraq, and my right hon. Friends the Defence Secretary, the International Development Secretary, the Prime Minister and I had a detailed discussion this morning, as we have done for many weeks, about the nature of further humanitarian assistance and its conditions should military action prove necessary against Iraq.

Mark Oaten: I start by thanking the Foreign Secretary both for providing prior notice of his statement and for coming to the House in advance of those critical meetings rather than after them. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the international community can only deal effectively with Iraq if we are united. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore accept the concern that to ignore the vetoes in the Security Council may have serious consequences for that unity and would undermine the Security Council's role? Does he also accept the need to tone down the rhetoric on the part of Government to minimise the damage currently being done in relations with NATO and our EU partners, and with Russia and China? Will he use this opportunity to distance himself clearly from the suggestions being made in America that Germany and France should face economic sanctions or that American troops should be withdrawn from Germany as a result of this week's disagreements?
	In his statement, the Foreign Secretary dismissed the French and Russian proposals that were put forward this week. Can he tell the House whether he has sought meetings with the French and the Russians about those proposals, and why he so quickly dismisses the option of further UN inspection and containment?
	At the Security Council meeting tomorrow, I hope that Britain will lend its support to the work of the inspectors. If the inspectors believe that with more time, co-operation and space, progress could be made, they should be given more time. Will the Foreign Secretary commit himself to that, and recognise that the vast majority of members of the public who will be marching this weekend support the view, as does the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, that we should put our faith in the United Nations and allow the inspectors more time?
	Finally, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to give a firm commitment that if a UN resolution is tabled next Monday, the House will be recalled on Tuesday for a full debate on that resolution?

Jack Straw: First, may I say two things about the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), for whom the hon. Gentleman is deputising? I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that it is a matter of great pleasure to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making good progress. I also take the opportunity to record our congratulations to him on having been elected deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.
	The hon. Member for Winchester asked about us ignoring vetoes. We do not want to be in that position. We are asking all members of the Security Council, when they come to assess the report of Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei, to follow through the true meaning of the language to which every single member of the Security Council signed up on 8 November. We cannot be in the position where we and other members of the Security Council believe that conclusions following from the true meaning of 1441 are inescapable, but one member, for example, seeks to avoid those conclusions. In the end, the decisions that the British Government make must be a matter for the British Government endorsed by the House, not for another member state.
	We want a second resolution if we deem military action to be necessary. That has always been our position, but let it also be clear that 1441 is a sufficient mandate for such military action, because 1441 spells out with complete clarity that there are obligations on Iraq that it must follow through—very straightforward obligations. If Iraq follows them through, there will be—there can be—no military action whatever. If Iraq fails to follow those obligations through, it will be in further material breach, and if it is in further material breach, serious consequences—force—will follow. There was a suggestion in the United Nations when we negotiated 1441 that there had to be written into 1441 a requirement for a second resolution if military force was to take place. That was dropped from the final draft, which is how we ended up with 1441 in its present form.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about discussions with my French and Russian counterparts. We have discussions all the time. I shall be having more discussions with Igor Ivanov and Dominique de Villepin tomorrow. I accept entirely, as I did in response to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, that we do not want to be involved in recriminations between friendly member states of the United Nations, so we will not get involved in that.
	On further United Nations inspections, I said in a speech on Tuesday this week that if the inspectors themselves ask for more resources, of course we will consider that, but we cannot be drawn into the argument from outside the inspectors' ranks, which seeks to imply that, in the absence of co-operation, more inspectors will resolve the matter. They will not. Procrastination is not the solution to the problem; co-operation is.

Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that decent and humane instincts cause people to feel revulsion from war? Will he also explain to those who may be thinking about marching for peace on Saturday that there is an accumulation of evidence that indicates the need to deal decisively with the Iraqi regime as an irrational, aggressive, dangerous power in breach of international law, and that deeply desirable as it is that the United Nations should proceed together, if the UN proves unwilling to enforce its own resolutions, those nations that are willing to take responsibility would be justified in undertaking military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I do not criticise people who go on this march. That is their democratic right, and I celebrate the fact that they are able to go on the march. I acknowledge that not only they, but people of all political persuasions and none are anxious about military action. We should all be anxious about military action, but most of us recognise that in certain circumstances military action is necessary to save the peace.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there are many RAF personnel based in my constituency and living there? Quite a few have been deployed to the Gulf already; many are on standby to go. Those brave servicemen and women are prepared to lay down their lives for their country. Surely they deserve nothing less than a totally united alliance and a totally honest Government, who issue no more dodgy dossiers?

Jack Straw: I have dealt with the latter point. The dossier itself was accurate. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, yes, I am aware of the important garrisons of RAF personnel in his constituency. We salute their courage. Of course, as I said in my opening remarks, it is extremely important that those people, who are placing their life, their future and that of their family on the line, receive the fullest possible support, not just from this country, but from the wider international community.

Harry Barnes: Just how will we determine that it is Saddam Hussein and his rotten regime that will face the serious consequences provided for in resolution 1441, and not the Iraqi people generally who suffer the bulk of the destruction? Their conditions have been described poignantly in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who spelled out a number of serious humanitarian crises that will arise if an attack takes place.

Jack Straw: Any military action involves a terrible but necessary calculation that the number of casualties and deaths from that military action should be less than that which would occur without such military action. I say to my hon. Friend that in that calculation we must not only bear in mind the deaths and killings by Saddam Hussein, which will continue into the future unless his vile regime is checked, but draw into that account the fact that Saddam Hussein is already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim people in his own territory and in the territory of Iran and Kuwait.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Foreign Secretary share our concerns about Turkey, particularly in light of the disgraceful decision by France, Germany and Belgium not to fulfil their NATO obligations, and after the pretty shabby treatment that Turkey received from the EU for its application, which was underlined by the racist remarks of the Chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Giscard d'Estaing? May I have an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that he will do everything to underpin Turkey, and that he will tell the Turks that the great majority of people in Europe, in NATO and in this country strongly back their new democracy?

Jack Straw: The deal that was achieved at the European Union summit in Copenhagen was not a shabby one, but a very acceptable one, which we urged upon Chairman Erdogan and Prime Minister Gul at the time. I accept the wider anxieties expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. It is somewhat ironic that there is only one member state of NATO that is Muslim, and it is that state whose defence is being denied by three member states of NATO. This is an important matter to weigh in the balance. As for our position, we stand fully behind and in support of Turkey as a most important member of the NATO alliance and as a prospective member of the European Union.

Gordon Prentice: My friend mentioned the September document published by the UK Government, which suggested that Iraq had a fully functioning nuclear programme, but is it not the case that when the weapons inspectors reported on 27 January, they found no evidence at all that Iraq had reactivated its nuclear programme? It is because of the quality of evidence that has been presented by my friend and the Prime Minister that we seem unable to carry public opinion with us. Would it not be an absolute outrage if we went to war without a majority of members of the Labour party, the parliamentary Labour party and the British public endorsing that action?

Jack Straw: I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I simply disagree with him. The evidence in respect of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons and weapons programmes, and its readiness to develop a nuclear weapons programme, is overwhelming. The United Nations itself has said that repeatedly. This is not an assertion of the United Kingdom Government or of the United States; it is the central part of resolution 1441. I know that my hon. Friend subscribes very strongly to the United Nations and places faith in it. The third paragraph of the resolution states that the United Nations recognises
	"the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."
	That is the truth; that is what we are dealing with. It is Iraq that was found guilty 12 years ago and it has to prove its innocence, given the guilt that was plainly found in 1991.
	On the nuclear weapons programme, the absence of evidence in a huge country where there are only 100 inspectors does not prove the absence of a programme. What we must then look at is the other circumstantial evidence. We must look at the fact that, in 1991, it turned out that Iraq had a nuclear programme that was so highly developed that it would have been able to launch nuclear weapons within three years.

Gordon Prentice: The evidence?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend says that there is no evidence, but I look forward with interest to hearing what the inspectors say about the 3,000 pages of documents relating, I understand, to a nuclear programme conducted by Iraq. The documents were found not in filing cabinets in an Iraqi Ministry of Defence establishment marked "nuclear weapons programme", but in the private home of an Iraqi scientist. We would have found it odd if that had happened in this country and I believe that my hon. Friend would have found it so too.
	Finally, I say to my hon. Friend—I do not believe that he is naive, but I am anxious to protect him from that charge—that it is also worth bearing in mind the fact that Iraq said for four years that there was no evidence whatever of any biological weapons programme. Saddam Hussein said that it was absolutely untrue that such a programme existed and the inspectors could not find any evidence. As my hon. Friend is not naive, I know that he would not have stood up and said, "Therefore, the programme does not exist." That would have been very wise, as it took the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law to spill the beans and reveal that Iraq had the most terrifying programme. We know about this man. We know that he is not only a liar, but a man who has amassed terrible weapons to destroy his own people and the region. That is why we have to deal with the situation.

Andrew Robathan: I accept, in general, the evidence that the Foreign Secretary puts forward, but will he accept from me that last week's publication of the dossier, which was substandard at the least, undermined the Government's case, muddied the water and left those of us who broadly support the Government's position somewhat confused about their policy aims? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me about those aims? He said earlier, "I still hope and pray for a peaceful outcome to the crisis." Can he foresee the achievement of such an outcome while Saddam Hussein is left in power in Baghdad?

Jack Straw: Yes, and that has always been in prospect. Let us make this clear. It has been anticipated by the United Kingdom Government and by President Bush in an important speech that he made in Cincinnati late last year. I do not think that anybody in the House, on any side of the argument, has any brief for Saddam Hussein, but the objective of resolution 1441 was to secure his disarmament, hopefully by peaceful means. What President Bush said—I endorse these words entirely—is that if there was full and peaceful disarmament by Saddam Hussein, the nature of his regime would change. That is true. In any event, the objective is peaceful disarmament and Saddam Hussein has it in his hands to disarm peacefully and survive. I would not like the latter, but it would be an acceptable consequence of his full compliance with the will of the United Nations. That is why it is absolutely true when we say that he has a real choice. I hope that, even at this late stage, he exercises it.

Kevin Hughes: I am not a warmonger, and perhaps I should declare an interest: like thousands of others, my son has been called up for active duty. That will be worrying for me and my family, but it will not blur my judgment about difficult decisions that may need to be taken. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Saddam does not choose the peaceful route—it is still available to him as we speak—we may need to engage in military action, despite the shenanigans of Germany, France and Belgium?

Jack Straw: I should like to place on record my huge respect for my hon. Friend and above all for his son. Like many other hon. Members, he has somebody in his family who will place their lives on the line if military action takes place. It is worth remembering that that is a long and honourable tradition for this country and that the freedoms that we hold dear and take for granted have been protected only as a result of the willingness of British servicemen and women to do what his son is now willing to do.
	As for the action that we have to take, we hope and pray that the situation can be resolved peacefully. If it cannot be resolved in that way, we hope and pray for unity in the United Nations and the international community, but in the end, we also have to make our own decisions.

Alex Salmond: Have not Ministers told us in the past that there should and would be a second resolution of the United Nations? But today the Foreign Secretary tells us that that remains in prospect. Since he likes transcripts, I have a transcript of the Prime Minister's words on "Newsnight" exactly a week ago. The Prime Minister told the studio audience that the only narrow circumstances in which the United Kingdom would proceed to military action outwith a second resolution were those in which there was a majority in the Security Council that was subject to an unreasonable veto. It now seems that even that position has changed. Does the Foreign Secretary realise the hopeless position of going to war in the name of the United Nations without its full authority?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman needs to read the terms of resolution 1441. The full authority of the United Nations is there. We want a second resolution and we have always made that clear. As to whether there will be a second resolution, that remains to be seen.

Alice Mahon: May I tell the Secretary of State that his tactics of exaggerating the negative and ignoring the positive in the inspectors' reports fool no one? War based on what we know so far would be totally disproportionate. May I bring him back to the public and the members of his own party? One recent poll showed that 46 per cent. of people in this country would not support a war against Iraq on the basis of what we know now, with or without a second UN resolution. In those circumstances, if he sends our servicemen and women into great dangers without the backing of the country, he will be betraying them and, I also think, disgracing his high office.

Jack Straw: I do not think that my hon. Friend's comments are justified or worthy of her. I know that she feels strongly about this matter, but others are entitled to take a different view and feel just as strongly. I do my best, as I always have done in this House, accurately to reflect and summarise documents that we are discussing. It is impossible to read the reports of Dr. el-Baradei and Dr. Blix without concluding that they show in terms that I have already quoted that there has not been the active co-operation that was sought by resolution 1441—a lack of co-operation that goes back 12 years. I say to her that no one is exaggerating the problem and no one has invented the fact that Iraq had the programme. Until it proves otherwise—the onus is on it to do so and the evidence suggests the reverse—it looks as though it continues to have the programme. We owe it to our own people, but even more to the people of the region, to eliminate that danger before it is too late.

David Curry: What evaluation have the Government made of the latest so-called bin Laden tape? The United States has leapt upon it as proof positive of a link between terrorism and Iraq, but the Foreign Secretary has not even mentioned it today. The British Government seem to be much more circumspect in making this link. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is a substantive link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, or is this an area in which there is some difference between our appreciation of the evidence and that of the United States?

Jack Straw: The Prime Minister and I have both said on a number of occasions that we have seen no evidence that links al-Qaeda with the Iraqi regime in respect of the events that happened before and on 11 September. I have also added that I would not be surprised if such evidence came forward, but I have seen none. As for other links—again, this has been made clear by the Prime Minister and me—there is some evidence of links between the al-Qaeda organisation and Iraq, in terms of the Iraqi regime allowing a permissive environment for the operation of al-Qaeda operatives, and there is overwhelming evidence of Iraq's active support for terrorist organisations operating in Israel and the occupied territories.

Stephen McCabe: Like every other sane person, I would prefer to have peace, but the prospect of peace at any price frightens me because it probably means war postponed. Is it not the sad truth that the time has come when we must have overwhelming evidence of Saddam Hussein's compliance with the UN? If not, is not the blunt choice that we can either have a controlled, planned and deliberate use of force to disarm him or await the postponed war that will surely come? Such a war would come at the time, and in the place and circumstances, of Saddam Hussein's choosing.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend speaks very wisely on this issue. We will gain nothing by procrastination. Deferring decisions and refusing to face up to the clear evidence will not make this easier to deal with, but very much harder.

James Paice: Earlier this afternoon, in the other statement, the Home Secretary took issue with my hon. Friends who raised the issue of what has been described as the "dodgy document", and said that it had nothing to do with the threats to Heathrow and elsewhere. Last week, the Prime Minister told us—the Foreign Secretary reiterated this a few minutes ago—that there were clear links between the Iraqi regime and international terrorism. Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred only to the compassionate reasons for dealing with the Iraqi regime, namely to release the Iraqi people from the situation that they are in. Today, the Foreign Secretary's statement has, quite rightly, concentrated on resolution 1441 and the resolutions that have gone before it. Given all this, is it surprising that the British people are becoming more and more confused by the different messages coming from the Government, and that they do not fully understand the reasons for our being on the verge of entering into a military conflict? It is not that people are wholly opposed to it; they simply do not understand, because they are confused by the messages coming from the Government.

Jack Straw: I do not accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the focus of my statement today has been on resolution 1441, because that will be the focus if any action becomes necessary. We cannot, however, exclude other terrible aspects of the Iraqi regime, including its lamentable humanitarian record and the fact that it has supported and continues to support terrorism, in the circumstances that I have already described.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a clear statement of principle and intent? If the weapons inspectors report that Iraq is reasonably and fully complying and co-operating with them, and if, as a result of that compliance, matter is found that indicates that the original declaration was misleading, false or—to use the topical term—dodgy, would that be regarded as legitimising war?

Jack Straw: I will send my hon. and learned Friend a copy of resolution 1441. The test for a further material breach is clearly laid out in operational paragraph 4, and we are subscribing to that.

Michael Jack: The Foreign Secretary has put before the House today a well argued and well presented assessment for action, but he will realise that many members of the public are still sceptical. Many of them would have liked some real proof from the weapons inspectors. To that end, why was the latest intelligence information presented by Colin Powell to the Security Council—namely, a point at which the mobile germ warfare units replenished their stocks of materials—not made available to the weapons inspectors, so that, as Colin Powell was presenting it to the United Nations, Hans Blix and his inspectors could have found it and linked the assessment to reality?

Jack Straw: Of course I understand the anxieties of members of the public. I have constituents, as does every other hon. Member, and I make myself fully available to them. I did so last Saturday, when I had a very good and thorough debate in an open-air meeting on Iraq that I organised in the centre of Blackburn. That consultation with my constituents will continue.

Keith Simpson: And with your son.

Jack Straw: That is the essence of democracy, and I fully subscribe to it.
	Of course there is no unanimity here, but the public want to hear the arguments in favour of the very difficult decisions that are before the Government and that will, perhaps, be before the House in due course. When they hear the arguments, they are convinced of the need for dealing with the issue in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has just spelled out. On the other point that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised, there has been very active co-operation between the intelligence agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom, and the weapons inspectors. I shall not go into detail about that, but there is always a difficult judgment to make about whether any intelligence should be given publicity, because its source could be extinguished immediately. We also had to be very careful, in the initial stages, about the degree of intelligence sharing, to ensure that it was done on a secure basis. It has been there, however, and it continues. I do not believe that either of the chief weapons inspectors has any complaint about the level or degree of intelligence sharing with them.

Alan Simpson: I am genuinely saddened at the answer—or non-answer—given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), because it will only serve to reinforce the public presumption that the Government are seeking a pretext for a war on Iraq, rather than the avoidance of one. I want to ask the Secretary of State a specific question about chemical and biological weapons. On 5 February, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld made it clear that America has plans to use what he referred to as "non-lethal" biochemical weapons on Iraqi society. Will the Secretary of State confirm what was admitted in that testimony, and that such weapons are illegal under the chemical and biological weapons conventions? Will he also confirm that the current UK policy is for UK troops not to be involved in any operations involving the use of such weapons? If that is not the case, will he explain why it would be acceptable for such weapons of mass destruction to be used on Iraqi society, if it is unacceptable for them to by used by Iraqi society?

Jack Straw: I think that my hon. Friend is talking about CS spray, which our own police use.

John Pugh: In the Foreign Secretary's statement, we heard the line:
	"The central premise of Iraq's so-called disclosure—that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction—was . . . a lie."
	Does the Foreign Secretary either know or believe that Saddam Hussein has a working nuclear device?

Jack Straw: We have not received any evidence to that effect, but we know that he did have working nuclear devices and that he was within three years of being able to launch real nuclear weapons. We also know that the inspectors found—contrary to the disclosure—3,000 pages of documents relating to Iraq's nuclear programme, which were not in the offices of the Iraqi Ministry of Defence but in a private house.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of British people have not been convinced by the Government's case, not because they have lost their nerve or do not take seriously the nature of the Iraqi regime or the problem of proliferation, but because they have not been convinced by the logic that a massive military attack will solve the problem. They see the United States' approach to North Korea and the inclusion of Iran—which is currently our ally—in the axis of evil, and they ask questions about double standards. The Government, rather than continuously reiterate the threat from Iraq, should explain to the British people how a massive bombing attack would reduce the risk of terrorism in future. People see—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary will be able to answer that question.

Jack Straw: As a matter of fact, I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the British public do not acknowledge the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Indeed, in the past few months public understanding of the nature of the threat has greatly increased. I accept that public opinion is divided about whether we should back active diplomacy with a credible threat of force and be ready to follow that through. I understand that and I share the anxieties that people have about military action, because it should only ever be a last resort. We must show, as I hope we have, that we are being very patient and following through our obligations under international law by the United Nations route. However, as we know from world history, on occasions it is essential to enforce law by force; otherwise the world becomes extremely dangerous.

Julian Lewis: How realistic is it to maintain that Saddam Hussein can be permanently disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction without the removal of his regime?

Jack Straw: We are following through resolution 1441, which lays out a peaceful pathway for Saddam's regime. I have dealt with the fact that, whether we like it or not, it would still remain in place under the resolution, albeit in very different circumstances. Of course, if that happened, we would need to maintain a continuous presence, with some kind of inspection to ensure continued compliance. However, the fact that we would be willing to accept that is further evidence that we are straining every sinew to find a peaceful solution to the crisis.

Glenda Jackson: Is it British Government policy not to engage in a pre-emptive strike on Iraq without a second UN resolution to that effect? Would it still remain British Government policy to engage in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if one or—as seems likely—more than one of the five members of the Security Council veto a second resolution?

Jack Straw: I have spelled out to my hon. Friend and to the House our great preference for a second resolution, if one proves necessary. However, there has never been the least dubiety that we must reserve our position in the event that a second resolution is not possible. I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties about so-called pre-emption, but the United Nations charter, in article 50 and several other articles in chapter 7, clearly anticipates the use of what is described as "preventative force" to enforce the will of the United Nations.

Christopher Chope: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the reasons why the public are sceptical about the issue is the inherent ambiguity in resolution 1441? The Foreign Secretary today said that the words "serious consequences" could only mean disarmament by force. If that is the only interpretation of that expression, why were the words "disarmament by force" not included in the resolution originally?

Jack Straw: That would have been better, in a way, but in diplomatic speak the choice was between "all necessary means" and "serious consequences". Everybody in the diplomatic community knows that "serious consequences" means the use of force. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it would be better if diplomatic speak was more explicit, I agree, but those words mean force.

Barry Gardiner: Many hundreds of my constituents are Iraqi citizens. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what consideration the Government have given to the status of those constituents if hostilities break out? He will appreciate that they know better than anyone of the need to disarm Saddam Hussein, because they fled from his regime. It would be a travesty if their lives were disrupted further by this country's engagement in a war against Saddam Hussein.

Jack Straw: I applaud the courage of many of my hon. Friend's constituents who are Iraqi exiles. Their families may still be at grave risk within the territory of Iraq. This country has a proud humanitarian record and we shall continue to uphold that record in the event of military action against Iraq.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been famous for consulting focus groups? A very big focus group will meet on Saturday in London. It is high time the Government concentrated on listening to those voices from rural and urban Britain instead of paying too much attention to that highly motivated clique in Washington.

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I am very much a member of old Labour—[Interruption.] I have never consulted a focus group in my life, except the open-air meetings that I hold regularly in the middle of my constituency. I shall continue to do so. We recognise the strength of feeling about the issue and we are listening, but the faith that we have placed in the United Nations system can be sustained only if we do not make the mistakes that the country made before the second world war, when we failed to back that fine diplomatic institution, the League of Nations, with proper means to enforce its will.

Personal Statement

Michael Trend: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make this early response to the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which was published this morning, especially in the light of the imminent parliamentary recess and my wish to make my position clear.
	I accept unreservedly the Committee's report, which finds me muddled and naive in my negligent understanding of the additional costs allowance. I apologise again unreservedly to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House and to my constituents. I am so very sorry.

BILL PRESENTED

Food Justice Strategies

Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Don Foster, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. David Drew, Dr. Ian Gibson, John McDonnell, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and Mr. Mike Wood, presented a Bill to require the production and implementation of food justice strategies to eradicate food poverty; to make provision as regards the content of those strategies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 58].

Education for 14 to 19-year-olds

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]

David Miliband: This is an important, timely and, I hope, useful debate. I look forward to contributions from both sides of the House, because education and training for 14 to 19-year-olds needs consensus and common cause, as well as sharp exchanges. The Government recently published their views in response to the consultation on last year's Green Paper, "14-19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards", which was debated in the House on 21 March 2002. I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) is here. She made an important speech in that debate, and I look forward to contributions from the Front-Bench teams of the two Opposition parties, the composition of which has remained the same since that debate. They will be pleased to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) will wind up the debate; I am sure that he will bring his customary élan to that task.
	There were 4,000 responses to the Green Paper that was published a year ago, including some from hon. Members. As a result, we have refined some proposals, dropped others, and introduced new ideas to the package. I am grateful to all who have helped fashion the proposals that were published on 21 January. I believe that they represent the foundation of a new and positive approach to 14-to-19 education and training that should command widespread support.
	I am encouraged by reactions from the education community, and I thought it noteworthy that Dr. John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, should say that
	"we can look forward to reforms that will be much stronger than those set out in the Green Paper 12 months ago."
	That is the purpose of consultation, and I am grateful for the positive and serious submissions that were made.
	Today, I want to advance four propositions: first, that our system has strengths, but also the structural weaknesses of a low-status vocational offer and a narrow academic track; secondly, that greater flexibility at 14-plus is necessary over the next few years to promote sustained engagement by those dissatisfied with the current offer at GCSE; thirdly, that in the longer term, structural reform of the curriculum, and of assessment and qualifications, should seek to build a ladder of opportunity for young people, preserving standards and enhancing achievement; and fourthly, that for the immediate future, the Government are making the right choices to ensure safe delivery of this year's A level and AS level exams.
	There is much to celebrate in our education system. To celebrate our successes is not a very British thing to do, but I think that we should. Ofsted says that we have the best generation of teachers ever. There have never been so many lessons judged "good" or "excellent". Test and examination results have never been higher. I remind the House that the Government have put their money where their mouth is with the most sustained increases in funding for a century, including in further education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) shouts something about colleges, and in doing so he tempts me to repeat the figures. There will be £1,000 extra for the average school pupil by 2005–06, and an extra £1.2 billion for further education over the same period.
	English qualifications are highly valued by higher education and by employers. Advanced level provides intellectual rigour and demanding standards. It is a robust platform for a three-year English university degree course. A levels and AS levels are—to coin a phrase—certainly well worth the paper that they are written on. Vocational qualifications such BTEC, RSA and City and Guilds provide high quality occupational skills and knowledge that are valued by employers.
	These strengths should not however disguise the weaknesses that remain. Only half our 16-year-olds achieve five good GCSEs at age 16, and less than half of boys do so. Some 5 per cent. of young people leave school without any GCSEs at all. Participation levels at 17 put us ahead only of Greece, Mexico and Turkey in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league table of participation rates. One in four of 16-to-18-year-olds had dropped out of education and training at the end of 2000—a rate that is significantly above the OECD and EU averages. Moreover, a young person from a professional background is more than five times as likely to qualify for higher education as one from an unskilled background. So now is the right time to turn our attention to the 14 to 19 phase of education. We have world-class performance in primary schools, key stage 3 reforms are focused on high achievement at age 14, every secondary school is to become a specialist school, and every teacher is to be backed up by high quality support. However, for a high-aspiration, high-achievement system we need reform at 14-plus.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny the story in today's edition of The Times by confirming that his proposal for federations of secondary schools will not involve a reduction in parental choice, or a reduction in the exam result information on individual schools that is available to parents?

David Miliband: I am happy to confirm that, but I am tempted to say to the hon. Gentleman not only that he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, but that he should not believe everything that members of his Front Bench tell the newspapers. The proposal for federations of schools is designed to promote collaboration among teachers at local level, which will help to drive school improvement. We want to increase the richness of, and the amount of, data that are provided on school performance. I do not regard the proposal as a threat to either of those things.

Graham Brady: Will the Minister therefore confirm that a federation of schools will not be a single admissions authority?

David Miliband: I am happy to confirm that although we are considering joint governing bodies for federations of schools, we have not proposed that they be single admissions authorities.
	I was going to give a short historical discursus on how, for a very long time, politicians have stood at this Dispatch Box and told the House that vocational education is the priority, and that now is the time to sort it out, but given the direction that our debate has taken, I will not go into that.
	I shall explain the short-term reforms that we consider necessary, and which were set out in our response to the Green Paper on 21 January. We remain committed to the principle that all young people should experience a broad and balanced education, but we also want to create more flexibility at 14 to 19, so that every young person can choose engaging programmes of study that suit their ability and interest. We need to create this greater flexibility both through releasing time in the curriculum to allow more choice, and through increasing the number and range of subjects that young people can study. To free up time, we are reducing the statutory requirements at key stage 4, so that the compulsory curriculum is reduced to English, maths, science and information and communication technology. Having noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is here, I should also point out that we are seeking to make courses, notably in science, more engaging. Perhaps he will contribute to that subject in due course. It is important to point out that, although we will no longer require every pupil to study modern foreign languages, every school will have to offer them the opportunity to do so.

Nick Gibb: Is it not odd to remove the compulsion to study a second language and at the same time to propose, as the White Paper does, an international baccalaureate? The French and German baccalaureates both include a compulsory second language.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a matter that I shall cover later on. We are not proposing to import the international baccalaureate; however, it would be foolish not to look at foreign systems, including the international baccalaureate, and to see what we can learn from them.

Tony McWalter: The Green Paper states that
	"the international baccalaureate was not designed to meet the needs of a high proportion of young people".
	Those who have the ability to profit from a foreign language can therefore do so within that scheme; however, it does not constitute a universal requirement.

David Miliband: That is a helpful point. The international baccalaureate has attractive aspects in terms of its structure and assessment mechanisms, and we want to learn from that. However, wholesale importation is not what we are seeking.
	I said earlier that the second leg of our drive to increase flexibility was to make more subjects available. To that end, we have already introduced eight GCSEs in vocational subjects such as engineering and applied science. Early take-up is encouraging across the board, and some two thirds of the young people who are involved in our increased flexibility programme are taking these new GCSEs. We intend to press forward with more new GCSEs in vocational subjects to promote local choice, not a national blueprint.

Chris Grayling: I of course applaud the broadening of the available GCSE options, but the Minister will realise that the two subjects that he picks—engineering and applied science—are those that one would expect to be taken by people who are going on to university, or to similar training courses later in life. In fact, the real need vocationally is on the part of those who leave school at 16, and who do not have professional trades to enter. Should not that gap be addressed?

David Miliband: We are trying to address that gap as well. Of course, not everyone who leaves school at 16 wants to remain in education; they may prefer to go on to modern apprenticeships, which I shall discuss later. Such schemes have encouraging take-up rates, but we have concerns about the quality and we want to improve it. The hon. Gentleman's point is that we need a range of options to suit different aptitudes and interests, and that is what we are seeking to provide.
	In emphasising choice, it is important that we recognise that a national uniform system will not be the answer: the solution in South Shields will look different from that in Swindon or in Southampton because the nature of our local institutions and labour markets differ. The Government's view is that we should build on local strengths—whether they exist in schools, sixth forms, sixth-form colleges, further education colleges, or local employment—to create a system that gives equal worth to all young people, provides high standards for all, and promotes high quality provision wherever young people study.

Tim Boswell: The Minister has suggested, rather interestingly, that there will be local provision for local conditions. Does he accept that, if his target is to be met and half this country's young people go to university, many of them will not go to their local university? Is not there a danger of mismatch, in that what is on offer in the Minister's constituency of South Shields, for example, might not be deemed appropriate or suitable to allow a young person to be admitted to a university in another part of the country?

David Miliband: Inadvertently, I may have misled the hon. Gentleman, as I was referring more to where courses might be delivered than to the curriculum that might be on offer. I am grateful to him for giving me the chance to clarify that important point.
	I hope that there will be unanimity among hon. Members that policy development needs to be better informed by the experiences and needs of employers. I applaud those companies that are making a success of modern apprenticeships. The most recent figures show that, in July 2002, the programme was supporting the learning of about 220,000 young people in England. We want to promote the programme and raise its quality.

Vernon Coaker: I think that my hon. Friend is to be applauded for his radical approach to the problems that he describes. Only radical solutions will enable us to tackle some of the failures in the system. My hon. Friend mentioned consulting business about the changes, but would not it also be a good thing to consult the young people who are experiencing the system, or who have experienced it, and ask them about the reforms that they would introduce to improve matters?

David Miliband: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is less able to consult young people than he was in his previous role, when he was in a permanent focus group with them, but his point is well made. It is important to involve young people. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South made an enormous effort to ensure that young people were consulted about the Green Paper proposals. It was a model of how Government should be open to young people's views. No doubt my hon. Friend will speak later in the debate, but I think that he would say that young people made a genuine contribution to shaping the proposals. That is a positive thing.

Phil Willis: He is a good man.

David Miliband: The Liberal Democrat spokesman gives my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a significant commendation. He will be pleased to hear that, but I am sure that he will not be putting it on his election literature.
	I can also confirm that the Government are committed to the programme of enterprise learning suggested by Howard Davies, which involves sustained engagement by young people with enterprise and entrepreneurship.

John Bercow: The Minister's proper concern about the quality of modern apprenticeships should not be to the exclusion or detriment of their scope. In July last year, the Government understandably set a public service agreement target that, by 2004, 28 per cent. of young people would, by the age of 22, be starting a modern apprenticeship. Is it not a concern that there has been a fall of 36,000, or 20 per cent., in the number of young people on such apprenticeships?

David Miliband: I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply to the specific statistics cited by the hon. Gentleman, as I do not recognise them from the briefings that I have had.

John Bercow: They are the Department's statistics.

David Miliband: I am sure that they are accurate, and I would never suggest that the hon. Gentleman would use anything other than correct statistics. I am sure that I am not given only the good news in my briefing. To answer the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, of course we must try and push on with quantity as well as equality. The lessons of the current programme must inform the expansion. We must make sure that it is driven by the learning needs of young people.
	The Government look forward to the national roll-out of educational maintenance allowances, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), in his role as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, has long campaigned. We also look forward to the further development of the Connexions service, which will combine to provide the essential infrastructure of advice and financial support.
	These short-term reforms need to be implemented with due vigour, but also with care. Longer-term reforms require proper debate and careful planning. Our aim in the long term is a system that upholds rigour and standards so that those achieving recognition for what they have learned can be clear about its value. However, the system should also promote participation and progression so that it helps fulfil the potential of every young person. That is not a pipe dream. France, the US, Finland and Japan have such a system, and the Scots have a better system than ours. I believe that we can have as good a system as those countries have.
	First, all young people must have access to coherent learning programmes. Whatever their chosen paths and aspirations, they should be able to combine sound acquisition of generic skills and knowledge with specialist learning tailored to their own needs and interests. We particularly need to tackle the longstanding weaknesses in vocational programmes. Too many courses and qualifications lack status, clarity and currency in the outside world. We need to strengthen the coherence of vocational programmes in further education, and their partnerships with schools, so that they have a much stronger sense of coherence and progression, and so that they provide a firmer springboard for progress into employment and into further and higher education.
	We need also to address the narrowness of some of the programmes followed by our most able young people. Despite the Curriculum 2000 reforms, too many students still follow an over-narrow A-level programme. I have said before that I am struck by the wide-ranging demands of the international baccalaureate—for example, by the 4,000 word essay that is an important part of the assessment—and we need to consider that carefully.
	Secondly, we must look at the existing range of assessment arrangements for young people. We must be sure that young people are assessed in ways that match the style and purpose of learning. We need to recognise that all the examinations and assessments that young people undergo should add value to their learning, by helping them to assess their progress, by motivating them and by recognising their achievement. However, we must also recognise the impact on young people and their teachers of the frequency and volume of examinations and assessments.
	Ensuring that means looking again at the balance between internal and external assessment, and between one-off examinations and continuous or what the jargon calls portfolio approaches. We must also consider the role of formative assessment, which helps young people to understand their strengths, progress and development needs.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must also look carefully at the number of GCSEs that some of our children take at 16? It is right for them to take a good balance of subjects, but the increasing tendency of schools to present themselves according to the number of children taking as many as 12 or 13 GCSEs has its dangers. That can work against a broader education.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with some authority on these matters, Later, I shall make the case that we should not fall for the old English fallacy that more means worse. In this context, she raises an important point. We want to stretch young people. It is not right that the only way to do that is to do more and more GCSEs.

Chris Grayling: I am listening carefully to the Minister. There is broad agreement that the problem has to do with young people aged 14 to 16 who are not pursuing academic subjects. I am worried that tinkering further with the examination system for those aged 16 to 18, which has not been working badly, is the wrong priority for the Government and for schools.

David Miliband: I shall make it clear later that it is vital that we offer stability and confidence to young people doing A-levels or GCSEs, or who are starting to think about their GCSEs. No Government should ever go in for tinkering for its own sake. However, there is a case for introducing stretch and breadth into the learning programmes of even the most academically able young people. We must try to ensure that the system stretches them to go as far as their talent can take them.
	The third aspect, after curriculum and assessment, has to do with qualifications. We must have a long-term qualifications framework that motivates young people to stay in learning, with clear progression routes, whatever their strengths and aspirations. It must be meaningful and credible to higher education, employers and others who use qualifications to make judgements on individuals.
	The benefits of a clear ladder of progression to a common qualification or group of qualifications at around 18 or 19 are obvious. Responses to our consultation last year told us that, although most people supported the aims of the matriculation diploma, it risked adding unnecessary complication to the existing system without being radical enough to achieve the degree of change that we should be aiming for.
	That is why groups such as the National Association of Headteachers, the Headmasters Conference and the Association of Colleges are increasingly attracted to, and arguing for, what they call an English baccalaureate. Baccalaureate-style qualifications work well in many other countries. They stretch learners, and value a range of achievements. Designed for English circumstances, built on clear commitment to higher standards, such a model could work here.
	It would not however be right for the Government to impose those reforms; but I am gratified by the degree of consensus that exists among schools, higher education, colleges and employers. Now is the time to test and refine that emerging consensus. That is why we have appointed the working group on 14 to 19 education and training, chaired by Mike Tomlinson. We have asked the group to consider, over the next year to 18 months, how to effect longer-term change of 14 to 19 learning, covering curriculum, assessment and qualifications.

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the qualification system itself is one of the things that has bedevilled our education system? Our qualification system starts from the top and moves downwards because it is geared primarily to enabling universities to select students in the easiest possible way. Unless we tailor examinations to meet curriculum objectives, we shall simply fall into another trap. How does the Minister square that with what he says about an English baccalaureate? We should simply be creating an examination structure for particular students with the particular objectives of higher education, trade or other vocational avenues.

David Miliband: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on this as on many other subjects. However, my comments about recognising all achievements in a unified qualifications system cover his point. We should certainly not disparage the need of universities to recognise high achievement; it is important that the qualifications system play that role, but that should not be its only role. Rather than the system being a series of hurdles that weed people out of education and training, I want it genuinely to be a ladder of opportunity that allows them to proceed.

Ann Taylor: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but the point that was just put to him is a valid one. Are not many universities moving away from demanding specific grades and adopting a points system? They are asking students to obtain a certain number of points in their A-levels. Does that not show a willingness to consider a wider approach? A credit accumulation system might suit everybody's needs.

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend, too, speaks with much authority on this subject. Universities use a range of techniques and the Government are giving some support for research into the possibility of a credit accumulation system of the sort that she describes.

David Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Miliband: Yes, but this will be the last intervention that I shall take; I do not want to overstay my welcome.

David Chaytor: Is not the beauty of the English baccalaureate concept that it would enable us finally to erode the distinction between the academic and the vocational, if it was based on a credit accumulation and transfer system? Could we not look more closely at the operation of the baccalaureate in France, where rigid divisions between the academic and vocational no longer exist?

David Miliband: I hope that my hon. Friend has the chance to describe the beauty of the new system in a contribution later on. His overall point is well made. I have never understood why in this country we think that vocational qualifications are second class, given that law, medicine or music are all vocations. It is time that we moved beyond that outdated distinction; it is not healthy for the country. Different qualifications should not have a different status. I should like us to move towards general and specialist study, as that would cross the academic and vocational divide.
	It would be wrong of me to close my speech without reporting to the House on the reforms being introduced to ensure the safe delivery of examinations this summer. While reform is being considered, stability is essential. For this year's A and AS-level students, for those taking GCSEs and for those who are considering their GCSEs, reform must be long term; it must not destabilise the learning opportunities of young people.
	The issues raised by head teachers' representatives and some examiners, in September 2002, about the grading of last year's A and AS-level examinations led to widespread concern about the stability of the A-level system. I repeat my deep regret for the distress that was caused, above all, to young people, but I am pleased by the vigour and efficiency with which the new team at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority—the chief executive, Ken Boston and the chairman, Sir Anthony Greener—are seeking to implement the widely welcomed recommendations of the Tomlinson reviews. They are also following up all outstanding complaints about grading or marking last year.
	In consultation with teacher associations, head teacher associations and examination boards, the QCA has now produced simple and clear descriptions for AS and A-Level standards. Furthermore, as recommended by Mr. Tomlinson, the code of practice has been amended significantly. The memorandum of understanding that was recommended is under discussion between the Department and the QCA and will be published in the not too distant future. I can confirm that the QCA is establishing an independent group of experts to report on the maintenance of standards in selected groups of subjects from year to year.
	On 3 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we would make available up to an additional £6 million to secure delivery of the 2003 exams. The money will be spent on ensuring that the 2003 examinations are delivered accurately and effectively, with particular attention paid to ensuring that there are sufficient examiners. The examinations taskforce, chaired by the QCA with representatives from the awarding bodies and the teaching profession, will oversee delivery of the examinations.
	The Government do not mark exams, but hon. Members should be in no doubt that we in Government are determined to take whatever action is necessary or recommended to improve arrangements for testing and marking so as to ensure the smooth running of public examinations this year and beyond.

Phil Willis: During the row about A and AS-levels, a major criticism related to the independence of the QCA from the Government. The Minister referred to the memorandum of understanding which was outlined in the quinquennial review, but many of us are still gravely concerned that the Government are too close to the QCA and that unless the authority becomes wholly independent we shall not get back the confidence that the system so clearly deserves. Will the Minister think again about that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention must come to a close.

David Miliband: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I got the drift of the intervention.
	The independence of the QCA is absolutely vital in the setting and marking of examinations and in the relationships with awarding bodies. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) 100 per cent. about that. However, the QCA plays other roles; it is the Government's curriculum adviser, too. Simply to call for the wholesale independence of the QCA does not give due deference to its two roles. When the hon. Gentleman sees the memorandum of understanding, I hope that he will feel that we are doing sufficient justice to the independence required in assessment while recognising the shared interest in curriculum development.
	The changes that we are proposing in the 14 to 19 phase are about offering young people greater flexibility to pursue programmes that excite and motivate them. But let us be in no doubt that, to achieve that, we need cultural as well as structural change. We are really talking about greater opportunity and choice, and we have to break the important cultural taboo on the relationship between academic and vocational study that I mentioned earlier and which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor).
	There is a second cultural challenge. As I have said on several occasions, we need to banish the English curse that more means worse—that more choice will mean lower standards and that more achievement means diluted assessment and diluted achievement. Standards are rising, because teaching is getting better and students are working harder. I for one am happy to celebrate that, but I will not rest until we have a system that matches the potential of young people with the opportunities that they deserve. That will take time and it will take ideas, but we are ready for that. I look forward to the views of the House.

Graham Brady: The debate is welcome, even though, sadly, it has been overshadowed and somewhat curtailed by other events.
	We are discussing a crucial phase of young people's education: the possible remodelling of the whole secondary school curriculum, the future of public examinations and much more. It is regrettable that we have only three hours in which to do justice to so much. I hope that we shall have further opportunities in the not too distant future to return to this important subject.
	Much in the Green Paper is welcome. We welcome the honest assessment of some of the problems that need to be tackled, some of which the Minister has mentioned today. Nearly half our young people do not achieve five good GSCEs and 61 per cent. do not achieve a good GCSE grade in English, maths and science. Five per cent. of our youngsters emerge from the system with no GCSEs at all. As the Minister knows, that problem is much worse in many of our cities; the figure rises to more than 10 per cent. in Hull, Bristol, Nottingham, Newcastle and Manchester. He and I agree that that situation is not acceptable and that we must work to overcome it.
	We very much welcome the attempt to improve vocational education, to regain the interest of those who are disaffected and to improve the skills of our young people. But as the Minister will expect, we also have some concerns and significant differences with the Government over how to approach these matters.
	There is a real problem with vocational technical education in this country. It has been a preoccupation of those who make policy for 150 years. The Minister resisted the temptation to give a historical discourse, and I shall resist it as well, but it has long been recognised that we have fallen short in this area. The repeated attempts that Governments have made to tackle it have never been truly successful.
	The Learning and Skills Council reported in "Skills in England 2002" a position that is worsening by some measures, stating that nearly a quarter of companies say that there is a skills gap, a measure that was up 7 per cent. on the figure for the year before.
	As Ruth Lea, of the Institute of Directors, has written:
	"put quite simply, when it comes to overall educational standards and workplace skills the UK is not world class and this damages productivity and economic performance."
	She went on:
	"We suggested a bipartite system in the UK, comprising an academic pathway (which should be made more rigorous) and a properly developed vocational pathway. (And, no, we do not mean an extension of 'vocational' GCSEs and 'vocational' A-levels that are still quasi-academic)."
	This is a route that we hope to explore further. Why cannot England have the kind of excellent specialist technical schools that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) saw in Holland on Monday?
	We are worried that the Government may be setting the wrong tone in the way in which they pursue an objective that we share. If they share our objective of strengthening the vocational offer, as the Minister puts it, and achieving higher esteem for technical education, then by setting a costly and unnecessary target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education they are piling financial pressure on to universities and students, when they should be giving more weight to the vital role of the further education sector in bridging a growing skills gap.

Meg Munn: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should maintain participation at 43 per cent. rather than seek to increase it to at least 50 per cent., is he also suggesting that children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are not currently going to university can never hope to get there? Or which young people who go currently is he suggesting will not go in future?

Graham Brady: Absolutely not. What I am suggesting is that entry to university should be based entirely on merit, and that our objective on getting people from less advantaged background into universities should be based not on messing about with qualifications and the routes they take to get there, or by social engineering in the admissions process of universities, but on improving the performances of schools and ensuring that children come out of schools with the qualifications they need to get into university.
	I am strongly opposed to an arbitrary target of 50 per cent., which has no educational or other justification. It has been plucked out of the air. It is causing problems and has no real purpose. We should not set an arbitrary objective for the number of young people going into university. We should allow it to find its own level. The emphasis the Government are giving by stressing the more academic university route runs the danger of pulling attention away from the area where there are real problems in our education sector, the vocational and technical area and the role that the further education sector could perform, which should be expanded.

Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that in setting the 50 per cent. target the Government completely failed to explain the connection between that target and the labour market, leaving open the real fear that they are creating university places without knowing what the training will be and what the end product will be in terms of employment?

Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would not want to be pulled too far into a debate on higher education. But there is a danger that pursuing the target for the target's sake will result in an expansion in the number of places, a continuing expansion in the number of young people emerging with ever-increasing levels of debt, and, as my hon. Friend suggests, a disconnection between the needs of the labour market and the qualifications with which young people are emerging. That may mean that those young people do not receive the benefits that Ministers constantly say young people gain from a graduate qualification, because they will not be emerging into highly paid professions. Some will face long periods of unemployment.

Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that modern apprenticeships can lead into higher education, that foundation degrees can lead into higher education, and that the one way in which we undermine the possibility of changing our culture in regard to vocational education is to suggest that we have a sheep and goats approach to our education system? That is why vocational education and training have failed historically.

Graham Brady: I could not agree more. The Minister is absolutely right: those routes should be ways into higher education and to university. The danger is that if instead all that the Government do is to fix a 50 per cent. target, the target will be to increase the number of places, not to find more people coming in through those routes or through the more traditional A-level routes. That is a mistake.

David Chaytor: rose—

Graham Brady: I shall give way once more, before I make progress.

David Chaytor: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept, in respect of his point about raising standards in schools, that if the current trends in performance at both GCSE and A-level continue, the 50 per cent. target will automatically be met over the next seven years?

Graham Brady: I do not accept that. I shall come to some comments on qualifications. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are very real concerns about the rigour of qualifications. I welcome some of the remarks that the Minister made in opening, because those concerns need to be addressed. We cannot automatically assume that the improvement in exam performance is always a sure indicator of an improvement in standards. As the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in education, he will know, as I do, that there are universities that are now, for instance, giving remedial coaching in mathematics to students who have A-grades in maths A-level.

Phil Willis: Name one.

Graham Brady: I could name one, and it is not that far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall not do so, but I had that conversation with a professor of computing at a particular university only a few days ago. Hon. Members who take an interest in education know that there are real concerns and that universities and employers are encountering difficulties sometimes with apparently well-qualified students, where the substance of their qualifications does not seem to meet the apparent qualification level. So I do not accept the point that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made.
	In suggesting that everybody should aim for university, which is not really the right route for everybody, in pursuit of egalitarianism the Government risk falling into the trap of giving a message that is elitist and is focused on the academic.

John Pugh: rose—

Graham Brady: I shall not give way. I want to make progress.
	If we want to increase opportunity, the Government say, ever more people should go to university. If we want to raise the esteem of vocational qualifications, they say, we should call those qualifications "GCSE" or "A-level". That is not the right route for vocational qualifications. It risks a further loss of rigour in our academic qualifications.

Helen Jones: rose—

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady, whom I know well and respect, knows that I have given way a good deal. I am happy to give way when more time is available.
	I welcome the fact that the Minister indicated that a baccalaureate-type qualification falls very firmly into the category of longer-term possible reforms set out in the Government's response, because it is essential that we now focus on restoring the rigour and reliability of our A-levels. The discussion of replacing the whole examination will do nothing to tell people sitting A-levels in the next few years that the exams are fair and credible. A baccalaureate may bring more breadth to the curriculum, but if breadth is at the expense of depth, it is the last thing that we want. We saw a loss of rigour in exams when we moved from O-level and CSEs to GCSE and to modular A and AS-levels. We must not allow that to happen again in moving to baccalaureates from A-levels.
	One of our strongest concerns about the impact of Curriculum 2000 and A-levels is that, in all too many cases, the pressure of time put on students at that point in their education removed the opportunity for those in the lower sixth year to engage in other activities, such as sport, drama and music. That is one of the reasons why we have argued for scrapping the AS-level, which was, in any event, introduced so incompetently. AS-levels have not only caused a reduction in the breadth of the educational experience—the Minister raises his eyebrows, but I stress that that experience goes much wider merely than the academic courses of study on offer—but have put in place a round of public examinations in the lower sixth year.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been informed by his Conservative colleagues on the Select Committee on Education and Skills that we could find no witness who would scrap AS-levels.

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady should try harder. I am sure that, if she were to follow the Under-Secretary's example of talking to young people, she would find many people who deeply regret the experience of the implementation of Curriculum 2000 and the damage that it caused.
	Putting in place an extra round of exams in the lower sixth year has led to young people being over-examined, and we also saw the confusion about the proportion of marks accounted for by the AS-level modules—modules were accorded 50 per cent. of the marks when they merited only 40 per cent. of them. That was one of the main factors that led to last summer's A-level fiasco. If, as the Government's response says, our first priority is to ensure the smooth running of A-levels this year and beyond and if the Government are serious about restoring the credibility of A-levels, they should look again at withdrawing AS-levels.
	We welcome the idea of some children spending a significant amount of the post-14 education learning in the workplace, but, again, we have some real concerns; we welcome it only if they have a high-quality learning experience. That proposal was first mentioned some time ago by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He was then talking about a fairly small percentage of children—the disaffected and disengaged, persistent truants and those who cannot be kept engaged in the traditional educational route—but the proposal has now grown into a major plank of the Government's policies for 14 to 19- year-olds.
	That initiative gives rise to some serious worries. First, quality may suffer; kids must not make the tea for the local employer. I know that the Minister does not want that to happen—it is not what we want to happen—but I hope that he will recognise that, in trying to offer such a massive provision of workplace training for children throughout the country, there is a danger that quality may not always be maintained. Secondly, there is a concern that sufficient priority will not be attached to guidance. If children are to be channelled into vocational routes at 14, we must ensure that they are the right ones. As the Guidance Council says,
	"the delivery of a universal service by qualified Personal Advisers with career guidance skills needs to be a reality for all young people, not just those at risk of dropping out."
	The Minister will be aware that serious concerns are being expressed about the way in which the Connexions service is being implemented; the focus is too much on those who may drop out, although many others need the guidance and support that ought to be made available.
	The Guidance Council goes on to pose some questions to the Government:
	"How will the quality of"—
	careers education and guidance—
	"provision across all schools, colleges and work-based learning be guaranteed, in the absence of a statutory framework for careers education and guidance? Will it guarantee entitlement to one to one support from a qualified Personal Adviser with career guidance skills for all young people, to enable them to make the best possible choices from the expanded curriculum?"
	[Interruption.] I am glad that the Minister seems to have a copy of that briefing note, so I hope that he has prepared some good answers.
	How will the Government monitor consistently high quality in the development of individual learning plans at the start of key stage 4, when crucial decisions need to be made? How will the development of initial teacher training and leadership programmes reflect the need for tutors and other staff to play an enhanced role in the career planning and review process? The Government's plans put far greater emphasis on the need for good guidance for young people. If there is more flexibility, there will be a greater diversity of routes from the age of 14. We have to ensure that young people take those choices and make those decisions with the proper guidance and support.
	We also welcome the proposed greater flexibility in the curricula, but that, too, gives rise to concerns. One of our most serious worries relates to what the future will hold for language teaching in our schools. We are prepared to accept that the compulsory teaching of a modern foreign language up to 16 is not appropriate for everyone, but we are worried that language teaching beyond 14 will decline under the Government's proposals before adequate provision is in place to fulfil their pledge that all school children at key stage 2 will have the opportunity to study a modern foreign language by 2010. The Minister believes that that will be achieved with the help of an army of language assistants, but he told me in a written answer on 21 January that in our 25,000 schools we have only 29.5 full-time-equivalent language assistants. We wish him well with his pledge, but at present it looks very much like pie in the sky. Even if he meets his target, we will be replacing compulsory languages post-14 with optional languages in junior school. The Government risk leaving the next generation even less able in foreign languages than those generations that have gone before. It also seems odd, I might add, that citizenship classes will be compulsory, but the study of history, geography and languages will not.
	We have one overriding concern—that schools that have coped with a state of constant change and reform over 15 years or more are now to be faced with yet another upheaval: more uncertainty, more curriculum changes and more changes in the exam system. Schools that have worked hard to accommodate the birth of the GCSE, the national curriculum, local management of schools and curriculum 2000—the latter being unfunded and, sadly, bungled—are now to take on a whole new 14 to 19 approach, the funding and direction of which will itself be split between the local education authority, which will, at least for now, pass on funding for 14-to-16 provision, with the Learning and Skills Council funding 16-to-19 provision. I should be interested to hear further comment from the Minister as to whether that will be the long-term picture, or whether he envisages that the role of the learning and skills councils will expand towards the start of the 14-to-19 phase of education.
	All this comes at a time when teachers and heads in even the best schools are struggling with ministerial red tape and interference. As the head of an outstanding local school in my constituency told me on Friday,
	"I have no problem with accountability but it has now gone far beyond that; the amount of red tape is forcing me to devote all my time to management where I should be concentrating on leadership."
	I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that if these changes are to succeed, it will be because of strong leadership in schools, not micro-management by the Department for Education and Skills.
	In conclusion, we welcome the Green Paper and the debate that it invites, but urge the Government to proceed with caution and to look for quality in vocational and academic education. If they proceed with the haste that accompanied the introduction of AS-levels, the education of a generation will suffer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Ann Taylor: I intend to be brief, and therefore shall not take up all the points that I would wish from the speech by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I must say, however, that I completely reject his contention that there is a lack of rigour in the examination and assessment structure and, by implication, that today's youngsters are not as well qualified as they appear to be. I believe that we have the best qualified youngsters coming up through the education system that we have ever had, and that our responsibility is to try to build on that and to improve it for the future. If I agree with him on one thing, it is his concern about foreign language teaching and the pace of change, which I hope Ministers will keep in mind throughout the next few years.
	I agree with the basic analysis presented by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. He is right that structural weaknesses remain in the education system, especially in relation to the low status of vocational education and the narrowness of academic education. That has been a problem for many years, and we must address it. I am glad that we are having a grown-up discussion about what should happen post-14, because it is important to tackle that problem now.
	In such a short debate and with such a brief time in which to contribute, I simply want to mention three aspects of post-14 education and use my constituency experience to try to give a flavour of the necessary changes. I welcome the changes to the GCSE—for example, the ability of young people in future to do a GCSE in engineering. It is good to increase the range, although doing that is not problem free.
	It is difficult to attract the right teachers for engineering. However, the teachers are there if we can lure them back, and perhaps the greater problem is getting the right facilities. Many further education colleges opted out of subjects such as engineering after their incorporation because of high overheads. If we are to encourage schools to provide a more adventurous range of GCSEs, we must deal with such problems and help them to have the quality facilities as well as the quality teaching that they need.
	There is much scope for co-operation between schools on the post-14 curriculum. That has not happened in the past, and it has become more difficult, especially during the time when schools were almost asked to compete for grant-maintained status. We can redevelop some co-operation and use the fact that not all schools will be able to offer the same range of GCSEs to get them to work together more closely.
	In Dewsbury, we mainly have high schools for 11 to 16-year-olds. Some have specialist status and others have beacon status. They all have different strengths and they are not a million miles apart. For vocational GCSEs—I appreciate that we are not to use the term, but I am trying to convey the concept—some schools could specialise in specific subjects and co-ordinate their timetables. For example, pupils from Thornhill high school in my patch could go to Earlsheaton high school for engineering lessons. Wednesday afternoons could be designated for switching schools. Some imaginative thinking would benefit everybody. I volunteer Dewsbury for any pilots that the Minister deems appropriate to test that further.
	We need to ensure that we have quality post-16 provision throughout the country. It must be provided where people want it. I welcome the fact that more youngsters are doing AS-levels and I reject the comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about those qualifications. I welcome the fact that more youngsters go on to study A-levels.
	However, in Dewsbury, almost all our academically minded youngsters are exported for post-16 education. As I said, our schools are mainly for 11 to 16-year-olds. There are extremely good sixth form colleges in neighbouring towns, especially Greenhead college and New college in Huddersfield. There are also good colleges in Leeds and Wakefield. Although Dewsbury has one school that caters for 11 to 18-year-olds, the town does not have quality AS-level and A-level provision. It is wrong that youngsters have to travel outside their area for such education.
	Dewsbury college is good at what it does. It offers a wide and increasing range of courses, but it deals with part-time and mature students in particular. Not many 16-year-olds who want to do AS-levels and A-levels go to that college for the limited number of courses on offer. We could build on co-operation between institutions. My ideal solution—which I think could also work elsewhere—would be to have a new sixth form college working in collaboration with existing high schools. Somebody from those high schools could be on the governing body of the sixth form college, and staff could be shared because not every school has every speciality. Such a solution could enhance the education on offer to 16-year-olds. We have to consider this urgently, because the number of 16-year-olds who get five or more good GCSEs and want to stay on in education will increase. We have an opportunity to provide better education and to consolidate the co-operation that should exist, and will increasingly exist, between schools. Again, if the Minister is looking for areas for pilot studies, I volunteer mine.
	My third point touches on something that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, but also on other issues. The hon. Gentleman talked about vocational routes as if they were rigid—once people were on such a route, they were on that and nothing else and could never get off. Some people are concerned that, if we are not careful, we may—despite having ended the 11-plus—be introducing the 14-plus. Nobody wants that; nobody wants a sudden divide into one route or the other at age 14. It is very important indeed to get the structure of qualifications right.
	Hon. Members have mentioned an English baccalaureate and one or two hon. Members have mentioned credit accumulation. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards of a Labour party document of many years ago entitled "Opening doors to a learning society". That document said that credits for GCSEs, BTECs or GNVQs could build into one overarching qualification that could become an English baccalaureate, although perhaps under another name. We have to incorporate that concept into our education system. I urge my hon. Friends to treat this issue, which has been around for a long time, as urgent.
	This is an exciting time in education for this age range. They are impatient for more opportunities and the time is right for us to push the boat out and be more adventurous. We should do so not to create turmoil but to create greater and better opportunities for youngsters who are achieving but could achieve even more in future.

Phil Willis: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). She makes a powerful case for what is a fundamental philosophy of Liberal Democrats—that of decisions being taken locally rather than at the centre. Her former colleague Baroness Williams of Crosby, in a discussion that I had with her last week, made exactly the same comments about Labour's past policy documents on credit accumulation. It is nice to see that some people remain faithful to their beliefs, even though they may have moved about the House.
	We welcome the strategy paper on education for 14 to 19-year-olds and we thank the Minister for making time for a debate. We are not often given the chance to debate policy papers, and it is important that we debate this one. We also broadly welcome the thrust of the proposals. Anyone reading through the document and the Green Paper would find it hard to disagree with the stark analysis of system failure going back not just a few years but many decades.
	We are pleased that the Government are prepared to take a measured approach to their proposals for system reform, especially on qualifications structures. Despite the rather sad comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), it is clear in the document that there is to be a measured approach to many issues. A knee-jerk reaction to a new qualifications structure would be absolutely disastrous for young people who are just starting year 10.

Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: Of course, I would be more than excited to.

Graham Brady: Has the hon. Gentleman not just said exactly what I said?

Phil Willis: With respect, that is not what I heard. Perhaps I should be terribly disappointed.
	Despite the fact that some things need to be taken slowly, we cannot simply allow them to go on as they are at the moment. There has been a lack of progress over many years. I spent most of my professional life working with the sort of youngsters for whom the Green Paper and reports such as "Bridging the Gap" and Helena Kennedy's wonderful "Learning Works" raised expectations and hope. The Minister provided his expertise to the social exclusion unit for many years. At least, he certainly offered his advice when he had a more important job as a political adviser.
	"Bridging the Gap" identified the fact that, in 1988, 170,000 16 to 19-year-olds were not in work or training of any sort. Another 280,000 were in work but received no training. Most of them had no skills. That is a damning indictment of the system but, five years after the report was published, we are in exactly the same boat. Doing nothing for the next five years is therefore not an option.
	In 1988, we created a post-grammarian curriculum for all. I am not overly-critical of what happened then and in the Education Reform Act 1988. The post-grammarian curriculum has been a real success. The fact that in 1988, 35 per cent. of young people got the equivalent of five good GCSEs and that the figure is more than 50 per cent. today is testimony to what has happened since then. It is also testimony to the success of the comprehensive system, which has delivered those results.
	That curriculum approach coincided with the decline of craft, practical and laboratory work in schools. Such work was squeezed by the curriculum. Furthermore, between 1988 and 1997, we saw virtually the end of apprenticeships in the workplace and the end of most industrial-based training schemes. All that has come home to haunt us.
	Since 1988, the temptation has been to have a more academic education for all that is intended to serve individual and societal needs. The obsession with GCSEs, performance tables and competition between schools and colleges was the hallmark of the previous Government, but it has severely distorted the education market for 14 to 19-year-olds.

Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in 1986 and the following years, we introduced a comprehensive system of national vocational qualifications for the first time and that, from 1992 onwards, we introduced a comprehensive structure of GNVQs? The system was not without its faults, but it was at least a sign of our commitment.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman has always been committed to this issue, and I particularly commend the 1992 reforms. The introduction of GNVQs led to a reversal of trends in schools. Unfortunately, however, the academic curriculum has dominated schools since 1988, and that is causing major problems today. It has had two effects.
	The first effect is the massive skills shortage in the workplace, for which we must all take some responsibility. The second, and more important, effect is that the education system has significantly failed a large number of young people, especially in terms of the curriculum that it has delivered. When I think about the problems with young people—the antisocial behaviour and disaffection, the exclusions from school and the creation of an underclass—it is clear that we cannot simply ignore what has gone on in our schools and the fact that the curriculum has not engaged them. It is important that we start to address that problem.
	I was just starting my teaching career back in 1963 when Newsom's "Half our Future" was published. Many hon. Members will have read that report and no doubt remember it. Newsom made the same analysis of the situation as the Minister made today: his response was to divide people into sheep and goats. He said that for 50 per cent. of our young people, the secondary system was doing well—hence the title "Half our Future"—but that the other half needed a different approach. We have still not made the necessary progress.
	I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I am delighted that he has been to Holland yet again. I do not know what he does in that country, but Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen seem to have a real affection for its attractions.

Ian Gibson: The hon. Gentleman likes tulips.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is trying to distract me, but it will not work.
	The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned modern language teaching. The Minister is right to say that it should be optional at key stage 4. However, he is fundamentally wrong not to make it a compulsory component of key stage 2 because only those schools in relatively middle class areas will offer modern languages to their children. That will put other areas at a greater disadvantage, especially in some of our inner cities where the basics of a modern language are important.
	I was disappointed by the Tory response and the comments of the leader of their party. I suppose they can say what they like because they will never be in government. [Interruption.] Well, we are optimistic about our chances. Tory rhetoric reflects a pursuit of elitism—the very thing that has bedevilled our education system. If hon. Members read the debate in 1944 when Butler introduced the tripartite system, they will see that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen are describing the same situation today. Perhaps that is a move forward from free schools, but it is hardly an agenda for the 21st century.

Chris Grayling: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman argues that Conservative policies are elitist when he advocates the downgrading, or possibly even the scrapping, of GCSEs, which risks creating the old two-tier structure between AS-levels and GCSEs that we once had between O-levels and CSEs. It is his policy that is elitist.

Phil Willis: I am terribly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking such an interest in our policy. Unfortunately, he is wrong. I have a great deal of respect for him, however, and he does not usually make party political comments.
	We will never reform the 14-to-19 agenda unless the individual, rather than institutions, is put at the heart of those reforms. We can never satisfy the needs of individuals unless institutions offer a comprehensive menu of options from which students can choose, as the right hon. Member for Dewsbury said earlier.
	Despite the changing focus that the Department's strategy signals, core issues remain unaddressed. I hope that the Minister will consider those issues following the debate, and that the Under-Secretary will refer to them when he winds up. The issue of independent advice and the Connexions service is very important. At present, the only students receiving such advice are those who will not acquire five good GCSEs. All our youngsters need advice. Moreover, it is not good enough to provide it when they are 14. We must start engaging much earlier with students who, at 14, will be choosing courses that will affect not just their key stage 4 but their 14-to-19 progress. I think that throughout key stage 3 they should be introduced to the idea of what constitutes the world of work, and receive proper guidance.
	Unless we can break free of institutionally dominated advice, we shall not give young people the service that they require. At present schools and colleges, especially schools, have a financial incentive to keep youngsters on the programmes that they can offer. That is fundamentally wrong: young people themselves must be at the heart of the agenda. It is tough for schools now. When I was a head teacher, it was much easier to create a menu and say, "Kids, you must choose". Looking back, I think we did them a great disservice.
	The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned the division between the Learning and Skills Council and local education authorities. He was right to do so, but he did so for the wrong reasons. Of course we must find a solution to the funding problem. The present situation is farcical: if someone between 14 and 16 wants to do some work in a college, there is confusion over whether the LSC should pay by means of a special grant, whether the LEA should pay, or whether devolved funding should be involved. We want a single funding stream for more than one reason, however, be it LEAs or the LSC—although we must have a proper grown-up debate about that, and not just hide behind traditional loyalties. If we are truly committed to taking a new look at vocational education, we must bring employers in. We must not assume that only schools and colleges can deliver education and training; places of employment can do that as well.
	The Minister seems to be shying away from the subject of 14-to-16s and employers, who are hardly mentioned in the document. We should be giving employers incentives to deliver part of the curriculum in the workplace. They should have access to resources in the same way as schools and colleges.

Chris Grayling: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman said about finance. Has he considered the possibility of a voucher scheme, which might provide the interchangeability for which he is arguing?

Phil Willis: No. I am always happy to consider these issues, however. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who is so obsessed with the way voucher systems work in America, should go to Cleveland and Milwaukee and see the disastrous effects of introducing a voucher system throughout an authority. I merely suggest that he could do that rather than going to Holland.
	One of the key groups whom the proposals need to target consists of young people who drop out of our system at 14—the 9 per cent. who leave school without any qualifications at all. If we are to engage them we have to offer something significantly different from 14 onwards. It is important to involve employers but, to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the real difference will be in the curriculum. We are pleased that the Government have rightly dropped the ludicrous division between vocational GCSEs and vocational A-levels. We have no objection to the widening of the GCSEs or A-levels on offer to include more practical or vocational courses, but we should not pretend that that constitutes the provision of a vocational education curriculum, because it does not. I hope that the Minister will reject the absurd proposition that more students pursuing vocational GCSE studies will result in far greater number of students achieving the five A* benchmark, as that can only be achieved by dumbing down the quality of GCSE studies, which no one in the House wants.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman has just made an important point about vocational GCSEs. Does he agree that the introduction of GCSEs or vocational courses alone will not tackle disaffection?

Phil Willis: Of course it will not. We need to offer young people a plethora of opportunities. If the reforms simply keep everyone inside a GCSE framework they will fail miserably. On the 16-plus barrier, if the reforms continue to provide a 10 GCSE diet for all, because that is how schools can perform well in the league table, we will fail. In the White Paper, the Minister contradicts himself by saying that he wants to slim down the courses on offer to a core of English, maths, science and IT but, at the same time, he wants to keep league tables, success in which depends on doing at least five GCSEs and a few more to make sure that five are passed. Schools will continue to compete on their league table ratings and the GCSEs that they offer instead of trying to offer young people what they need.
	The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is right. I recently visited a Sara Lee factory in Slough that has taken a group of disaffected youngsters out of school for team building. Those young people have since dramatically re-engaged with education. The huge success that Skillsforce and the Ministry of Defence have jointly achieved in co-operation with the Department shows how young people who would otherwise not be engaged can be engaged. Unless we abandon the nonsense of every student having to do GCSEs when they are 16 and schools having to compete in league tables, the reforms are not worth the paper they are written on, as they will sadly create by default a two-tier system with the kids who can going on to do one thing and the kids who cannot going on to do something else.
	This is an interesting debate, and hon. Members will wish to make other points. We have a short period in which to engage our young people. There is great support for the Government reforms. Five years ago, I said that we had all the evidence that we needed to make changes, but we did nothing. In five years' time, if we have not moved forward, everyone in the House will have failed.

Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been informed by some Iraqis who live in this country that relatives in Baghdad have just contacted them, saying that the weapons inspectors are preparing to move out. Given the statement by the Secretary of State today, which seemed to some of us very warlike indeed, and given that Hans Blix reports back tomorrow on the inspections, would it be possible to get a Minister to the House to confirm or deny the rumours that are circulating?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are aware that the Foreign Secretary was in the House just over an hour ago to make a statement on Iraq. I have had no indication that any further statements will be made today.

Ian Gibson: I associate myself with the point of order. The issue is serious and puts our debate in perspective.
	I am heartened that we have having the debate, nevertheless. For some time, I have thought that science education in this country could do better. I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the Government are addressing the problem. The need for that has been obvious to me as a chairman of governors at various schools in the Norwich area, and from informal discussions with teachers, technicians and students in my constituency, as well as from the report of the Science and Technology Committee, which rigorously examined science and technology education for 14 to 19-year-olds. I see that two of my colleagues on the Committee who participated in that report—the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter)—are present. We toured the country, talking to young people about their thoughts on the matter, so the issues that I am about to raise come from the grass roots.
	It was clear that teachers were extremely frustrated with science teaching, technicians were demotivated, and students were bored to death. No wonder: the curriculum is far too prescriptive, the assessment is quite inflexible, and resources are lacking. The Government have recognised that all is not rosy in the world of science education, but I wonder whether they know what to do about it. We have had a ragbag of initiatives recently—a science year, Planet Science, a key stage 3 strategy, an applied science GCSE, science and engineering ambassadors, new professional development initiatives, one-off investment in science labs, a consultation on the roles of support staff, and a pilot of a new science GCSE. What is the strategy behind all these initiatives, where are they leading and where do we aim to be?
	For all that, we produce some very bright young people who go into higher education, win Nobel prizes and succeed in developing great new ideas, which contribute significantly to the world of science and technology. My remarks may seem critical, but they are intended to show that we can do better if we sort out some of the problems at the grass roots.
	My hon. Friend the Minister appeared before the Committee and participated in a debate there which made an Arsenal-Tottenham derby look like a vicar's tea party. I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead laughing. When we asked about the Government's ideas about science teaching for young people, the answer was that we just have to give them the facts and everything will be all right. We said that about history some time ago, and history teaching has moved on quite a bit in the past 30 years.
	Science is not about knowing facts. It is not about answering Jeremy Paxman's "University Challenge" questions on science, although I am very tempted to join the team so that I can be extremely brilliant and give all the answers about Ohm's law and equations. But that is not what science is about. It is just one peripheral aspect of science. Science is more properly about engaging in experimentation, getting the facts and knowing what questions to ask.
	Science is a key part of our culture in this country. As Front Benchers on both sides of the House have pointed out, it is essential for our economic competitiveness and quality of life and it is part of our history and culture. It is just as important as Booker prizes, Nobel prizes and all the other prizes that demonstrate excellence in this country.
	The problem is that we must consider other aspects of science teaching. It is essential that people be literate about science. There are no issues of more importance on today's front pages than genetically modified crops, triple MMRs—measles, mumps and rubella vaccines—and nuclear power. I do not want people to understand all the equations, but I want them to have some sort of understanding so that they can engage with the questions that are raised. I do not want them to react in an emotive way because The Sun and The Mirror tell them what the questions should be. They should have some sort of confidence and understanding. When we talk about public understanding of science, it often involves an arrogance about science and technologies on the part of those who say, "If only the public understood our language and what we are talking about, it would be all right." Those days are long past. I am talking about engaging at a level at which we can talk to each other and in a language that allows us to put the facts in front of the people and say "This is what we think is happening; we are not quite sure, but this is how it might develop."
	When the space disaster occurred the other week, I was struck by all the science involved and how all the wonderful work that is done can go down in the public's estimation because of such a tragic event. The work must go on and we must engage people's brains throughout the world in ensuring that we make progress for humanity. That is not just about learning facts.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I very much enjoyed my time working on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. One of the messages that I got from our discussions with teachers and pupils—he may be aware of this issue—was that our fact-driven approach to science teaching reduced the time that was available to debate the issues and gain an understanding that did not necessarily include every scientific issue, but enabled people to talk about such issues sensibly and rationally.

Ian Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What he says is absolutely true. The young people to whom we talked said that they were put off when the headline news was all about issues such as GM and human cloning, but they could not talk about them. Instead, the teacher said, "There's no time; we must get on with the curriculum and pass exams" and so on. What a tragedy that is. Is it any wonder that that approach puts young people off carrying on and developing their ideas? Their being put off does not mean that they are not interested. Young women in particular were put off by such an approach. On asking young people what experiments they liked doing best, one saw that they did not want to cut up buttercups. We have all cut up buttercups in our time; it is dreadfully boring. Instead, they wanted to cut up a heart. They wanted to see how their bodies functioned and so on. I understand that. There are many hearts that I would like to cut up—[Laughter.] But that is for another time.
	One of the other problems is the demands of the examination syllabuses. The awarding bodies say that they are constrained by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's requirements. The QCA says that it must safeguard standards. A great deal of buck-passing goes on in this area. Where will all the impetus for change come from? We need more flexibility in the assessment system. Coursework can provide students with the opportunity to show initiative and follow their interests. Last week, with the grace of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), I opened a science laboratory in Clarendon grammar school in Ramsgate. Seeing the young women in the school engaged in experiments was stimulating and made me feel that it was worth banging on about the issues that they were concerned about, as we in government can contribute and make life better for them.
	Jumping through hoops should happen not only in PE lessons, but in many other areas where we can engage young people to achieve excellence. I have always been against examinations. Having taught in university and continually assessed people day in, day out, I can say that exams were a boring process, as I could have predicted what 90 per cent. of students would get in their final exams. We had seen all the coursework, but we put the students through that dreadful wringer of higher exams and three or four days of trauma. Very few people move on from the marks that they attain in the coursework system. Although the Minister of State and I may share an office, and seats at the same football ground, we certainly do not always agree about what should happen in higher education. We do agree, however, that many of the higher examinations that produce the upper seconds, the first classes, and all that, are for the rubbish bin.

Tony McWalter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, although I am aware that he knows that he will get extra time for a second intervention, so I am intervening partly for the thrill of listening to him for longer. Is he saying that one of the results that he would like to see from this initiative is that science in some form—it has a huge number of forms, as he has said—should be present throughout the system all the way through to a qualification to be obtained at the age of 19?

Ian Gibson: Of course, we cannot deny that. I noticed this week in the debates on hunting, for example, that at least two and a half days were spent on the science of hunting deer, and on whether the experimental work that had been done on behaviour was bona fide. It is just as important for a politician to have an understanding of that as it is for a five-year-old, a 12-year-old or a 15-year-old. Science runs through all our lives, and we must have some confidence in the subject and not just trust the experts to tell us what we should think.
	Science is based on evidence, and hands-on skills are very important in that regard. We can still go into laboratories today and see "Tony loves Cherie" scrawled on those awful brown-topped desks and remember how we spent boring afternoons watching the teacher doing the experiments and demonstrating to us how something worked, when what we wanted was to get into it ourselves—to make mistakes, perhaps, but to learn using hands-on skills. It is important to be able to do that. The Government have respected that need by providing a certain amount of money to develop the laboratories, but there are still many laboratories that turn young people off. It does not excite or engage young people to walk into a laboratory and see an old Kipps generator in a cupboard in the corner, caked in dust and chemicals, and all the other poor equipment there. Going out and taking part in field studies and seeing what happens in nature is also important. Because of the accidents that have happened, we must also address the health and safety problems involved.
	Someone once said to me that we would never get a Charles Darwin out of the current system in this country, and I fear that that is true because we do not give young people the time to engage with nature or to look at what is happening. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does things like that, but I remember him telling the Committee that he had failed some subject in the science field dreadfully—I forget which stage he had reached. He might have been a greater scientist than he is a politician. Who knows?
	We spoke to many inspiring and dedicated teachers, and there is good science going on in our country. We could really make it better, however, if we respected the technicians and the teachers, and made the young people who are enthusiastic and excited about science engage in the process—which is about the real world that we live in—of putting the science facts in, but also allowed them the facilities for gaining hands-on experience, finding out what is happening, questioning, arguing and not accepting. That is what science is all about, and we should be doing that in our schools.

John Stanley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), whose scientific expertise is appreciated in all parts of the House. In opening the debate, the Minister said that the Government's policy was for every secondary school in the country to be a specialist school. I have no difficulty with specialist schools and, as I shall go on to illustrate, one of the earliest specialist schools—a technology college—was created by the previous Conservative Government in my constituency. I have concerns, however, about one aspect of the Government's policy, and that is the limited number of specialisms—even after the announcement of additional specialisms by the Secretary of State this week.
	I am concerned about whether the existing specialisms are adequate for all types of school. I believe that, in one category of school, they are not. That is the category of schools with exceptionally high all-round academic ability. I am fortunate to have at least one such school in my constituency: the Judd school in Tonbridge, which is a voluntary-aided grammar school. It is undoubtedly one of the top-performing academic state secondary schools in the country. Its performance rests on all-round attainment. However, under the present categories of specialist school, there is no specialist category for all-round academic ability. The Government have placed an impossible dilemma before the Judd school. It is told that if it does not become a specialist school, it will lose out substantially—by around £150,000 next year—but if it becomes a specialist school in one of the limited categories, such as maths or languages, it will have to skew its curriculum and staffing, and will cease to have the all-round capability, at least to the same extent, that it has at the moment.
	The Government need to consider the position of those state secondary schools that have high all-round academic ability, because there is no adequate specialism for them. The headmaster of the Judd school has written to me with two pertinent questions. He asks:
	"Does the Government really want us to become a Specialist School if in so doing we are forced to jettison much of our expertise? Do we have to choose a distorting specialism to be given proper funding?"
	I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point and see whether it is possible to create a specialist category of all-round academic attainment for such schools.
	My comments on the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds relate to those parts of the country, such as mine in Kent, where we still have grammar schools. I do not regard the grammar school issue as a party-political one, because for me, it is an educational one. I recognise that in the 1960s and 1970s several Conservative authorities decided to introduce comprehensive schools. Equally, I am well aware that any number of Labour Members have given grammar schools the clearest possible personal endorsement that an individual can give and have sent their children to one. I respect that choice and, as far as I am concerned, it is not a cause for criticism of any individual who has done so.
	I trust that the Government will reflect on the fact that the remaining grammar schools enjoy profound support in their communities. They have been truly tried and tested by parents in those communities. The remaining grammar schools are the survivors. They have survived attempts at abolition by local education authorities, when so many introduced comprehensive systems in the 1960s and 1970s; abolition by Government coercion under the Labour Administration of the 1970s, when Baroness Williams was Secretary of State for Education; and abolition by ballot, under the present Government. It is a striking fact that since the introduction of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, almost five years ago, sufficient signatures to precipitate a ballot have been collected in only one location—Ripon, in Yorkshire—and when it took place, two thirds of the parents voted in favour of retaining the grammar school. We should not forget that the parents whose children go to grammar schools are in a clear minority in the areas concerned. In Kent, just under one third of children go to grammar schools, with the remaining two thirds going to non-selective secondary schools. Yet parents in those areas have wholly rejected the possibility of precipitating ballots, and the House knows what the answer was in the one area in which a ballot was held.
	Like the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), I should simply like to give to the House the experience in my own constituency. The town of Tonbridge has six secondary schools, of which no fewer than three are grammar schools: Tonbridge girls grammar school, the Weald of Kent girls grammar school, and the Judd school, to which I have referred. There are three non-selective secondary schools: the Hugh Christie school, the Hayesbrook school, and Hill View school.
	Labour Members might think this a classic example of children who do not go to grammar schools suffering a lesser education than they should achieve. However, the Hugh Christie school, because of its performance, was one of the first to be singled out for technology status. That was achieved in 1994, under the previous Conservative Government. The current Government have singled out Hill View school by awarding it arts college status as a specialist school. They have also singled out the Hayesbrook school by awarding it sports college status. Even more significantly, all three of the non-selective secondary schools to which I have referred were deemed sufficiently good—with a sufficiently good academic performance—to receive approved sixth forms from the previous Conservative Government.
	So notwithstanding the existence of three grammar schools, under two different Governments all three non-selective secondary schools in the Tonbridge community have achieved the status of specialist schools, and of schools with approved sixth forms.

Graham Brady: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Stanley: Very briefly.

Graham Brady: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so close to the end of his remarks. I am anxious that he be aware that what he says applies not only to secondary schools in his constituency. A written answer that I received from the Minister just the other day shows that of the 180 remaining secondary modern schools—or high schools—in the country, a quarter are achieving better results than the average result for all-ability comprehensive schools.

John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that—what I am saying does indeed have a very much wider application.
	I hope that the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the somewhat hostile remarks that he made about grammar schools since taking his post, will reflect closely on the fact that the remaining grammar schools enjoy huge, if not overwhelming, parental support in the areas in which they still exist. They are tried and tested, and they produce outstanding educational performance alongside non-selective secondary schools, which also do extraordinarily well by their own children. I put it to the Government that simply to ideologically remove the remaining grammar schools would be an act of sheer educational vandalism.

Helen Jones: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on what is, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, a crucial phase in the education of our young people. Fourteen to 19 is an age at which people set the course of their future life, and at which, we hope, they become aware of the opportunities opening up before them. However, during that phase it is vital that we keep their interest in, and enthusiasm for, education, and we do that best by making sure that they achieve success.
	It is fair to say that, as the White Paper sets out clearly, some progress has been made under this Government. More children are getting five good GCSEs, and numeracy and literacy standards are rising. However, the White Paper also sets out clearly the problems that we still face. We are far too low down the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's league table of people who stay on in education after 16. There is too much variation between schools. As has been said, in some schools fewer than 10 per cent. of children get five good GCSEs. It would be a sorry failure for the nation if we allowed that to continue, and a tragedy for the young people involved. They would fail in school and not acquire the habits of lifelong learning that they will need in the future.
	I suggest to Ministers that we should take a far more radical look at what our young people need to learn to equip them for the society in which they grow up. That will not necessarily be what we needed to learn. I hope that we will not be afraid of asking what education is for.
	We must also be careful about defining education purely in economic terms. Of course, schools should equip young people to earn a living. That is basic, but they should do much more. If we fall into the trap of thinking that we should provide a purely utilitarian education, we shall fail—economically, culturally and spiritually.
	If education is about more than jobs, however, it is also about not doing what we used to do, simply for the sake of it. When we design an education system, we are always influenced by our own values, by the education that we wanted to receive, and by our history. My hon. Friend the Minister of State did not want to give a history lesson, but one historical fact has bedevilled English education. In the 19th century, the Taunton commission decided that there would be three types of secondary education for three different social classes. Ever since, we have thought of subjects in those terms.
	My plea is that we stop doing that. We must start thinking about what young people will need for the society in which they grow up. They will need high qualifications for employment, and they will have to change jobs rapidly. Increasingly, they will spend part of their working lives abroad. Many people will live away from their families, with all the lack of support that that entails. Also, people will be deluged with information all the time. We must equip them to cope with that.
	The White Paper rightly sets out some of the minimum standards that all young people should achieve in English, maths, science and ICT. I support that proposal, and I hope that the House can agree about it. However, I want to go further. We should provide young people with choice, but we should also be talking about a minimum level of education that goes wider and which all our young people ought to achieve. Some of that could be delivered through traditional subjects, but some would be part of the wider curriculum. I want to set out some suggestions for discussion. It is important that we reach some consensus on the matter. Chopping and changing is no good for students, parents or teachers.
	First, I echo the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), that people should acquire scientific literacy, regardless of the other subjects that they do. People need a basic understanding of science, its history and how it has shaped our culture. My hon. Friend was right to note that they also need a means of assessing risk, and pointed to the number of scare stories that have to do with scientific facts. People cannot assess risk. We would be missing out a major part of our young people's education if we do not teach them how to do it.
	We must not fail to teach young people how to deal with the deluge of information. They are growing up in the internet age. We must make some effort to teach them how to distinguish fact from opinion, good information from bad information and well researched information from mere speculation. If we do not, we will not be training them to cope with the world in which they are growing up.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Lady agree that an inherent weakness of the current A-level system is that it inclines students to think of themselves as either scientists or non-scientists at the tender age of 16?

Helen Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that can be a weakness of our system, if young people are given the wrong advice. It is partly due to the university entrance system, so perhaps we should be encouraging young people to study a much broader swathe of A-level subjects.
	All young people should grow up with some knowledge of the history, customs and institutions of the country in which they live, but they are also citizens of the world and they need to know about the problems and opportunities in the world in which they will grow up. They should have knowledge of at least one other country and its culture.
	I have grave doubts about our post-14 language teaching. I cannot believe that most of our young people are not capable of coping with learning a foreign language. I support the Government's attempts to introduce foreign languages earlier, in primary school. Although some children cannot deal with learning a foreign language at that age, many more could do so if the teaching was right. German or Swedish workers can give television interviews in English and I refuse to believe that our young people are inherently less able than them.
	I support the introduction of more practical and vocational subjects in schools, but it must be carefully done. Used properly, such subjects can be a way of engaging and maintaining young people's interest in education. However, we must not divide young people into sheep and goats at the age of 14; there must be pathways between practical subjects and higher vocational or academic education. The Labour movement, in particular, should remember that categorising people at the age of 14 does not always work, any more than it always worked at the age of 11. If such categories had been fixed, Ernest Bevin would never have been Foreign Secretary—there are many similar examples.
	An important aspect of the Green Paper was not included in the White Paper. The Government are rightly introducing citizenship classes, but we need active citizens. Some form of community service should form part of the final leaving qualification in whatever leaving certificate we eventually introduce. There are several reasons for that.
	First, we need to help our young people to grow up by learning to accept responsibility and to help others. There are several good voluntary schemes and we need to make wider use of them. Secondly, there is an increasing generation gap, because there are fewer extended families and people are moving away from their families. We can narrow that gap through voluntary service. For example, in my area, there are many older people who worry about keeping their gardens tidy and many young people who could help them and benefit from that contact. Finally, we need to show our young people that being a member of society carries obligations as well as rights. We must assist them to learn about their obligations at an early stage.
	I raised an important point in my earlier intervention. Some of our children sit far too many examinations at the age of 16. That has two dangers. First, it squeezes some important subjects out of the curriculum. Secondly, it can lead to children being spoon-fed for their exams, which means that they do not develop the necessary research skills, which are essential for learning in later life. They cannot read around the subject or undertake projects that are not exam-related. I hope that we can help schools to develop other methods of improving and assessing students' work, which can be used alongside public examinations, because both are equally important.

Laurence Robertson: It is a privilege to take part in this debate. I was going to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) for missing part of his speech, but he is returning the compliment by missing part of mine, having left the Chamber for a short while.
	I wanted to make a brief contribution because I believe that there is a need to concentrate on many education issues, and I am not confident that we are quite getting the response right. It is not necessarily a matter of party politics. In some ways the problem is a lack of understanding of what is going on in the country.
	I should like first to speak generally and then to talk about children and young people who are losing out—perhaps one or two in my own constituency.
	My constituency is very mixed; it is agricultural, but it also has a great deal of industry. Like many others, it requires many skills, including those needed in the health services. I find that there is a great skills shortage. There is a shortage of teachers, for example. Every time I meet head teachers they tell me how difficult it is to recruit. It is not that they have a great number of vacancies, but the quality of applicants is not what it should be. One head told me openly last week that if he had the choice he would not employ a number of teachers now in his school if he could find others who were better. He thinks that they are substandard. That is not a very good situation.
	We know that in the health service there is a shortage of doctors and nurses, but less talked about is the shortage of scientific staff. People are not training to go into that kind of work.
	Part of the aerospace industry is in my constituency. I was able to ask a question about it earlier today. There is a shortage of people entering the industry, of people wishing to go into what might be perceived as a dirty job. Being an engineer is perhaps not as glamorous as certain other types of work.
	We have skills shortages in so many walks of life, yet we are apparently educating many people to degree level. I am the first to acknowledge that the party I support, when in Government, considerably increased the number of people going to university. I think that that was a good thing. I did not have the benefit of a university education. I wish I had.
	Something, somewhere, is going wrong when more and more people are entering university but many leave as graduates with no job to go into or enter jobs that do not require degrees. I am not saying that one should go to university only in order to obtain a better job. The value of the education must also be taken into account. But there is something wrong when so many young people find themselves in jobs for which they are over-qualified or have no jobs at all. We must question, therefore, whether the Government's 50 per cent. target is necessary.
	As I have said, while there are graduates who have no jobs or who are doing jobs that do not require degrees, we have many skills shortages throughout the country. So something, somewhere, is not working. We need to address that problem, and I am not convinced that we are doing so.
	I turn to the second part of my speech, in which I want to concentrate on the children we are leaving behind. As several hon. Members have already mentioned, there is a problem of children and young people missing out. Statistics from the last century show that most people have become more prosperous and that health services and housing have improved. Yet we seem to have developed an underclass of people. It is an awful phrase, which was used earlier, but I cannot think of a better way of putting it. We have a class of people who miss out completely. They miss out on better health services; they miss out on better housing; they miss out on prosperity. One of the reasons is that they also miss out on education.
	At least 50 per cent. of the prison population, and possibly nearer 60 per cent. now, are illiterate or semi-literate. I would not for one moment say that illiteracy is an excuse for committing a crime. Somebody who is illiterate and commits a crime must be punished. There is a question about what that punishment should be, but they must comply with the law just as the rest of us do. However, we also have to accept that there is an obvious link between no education and crime. Our education system has been developing for an awfully long time, so we have to question why so many children leave school without the basics of education.
	Hon. Members have rightly concentrated on GCSEs, international baccalaureates, A-levels and degrees, but the other side of the issue is that a lot of our young people are leaving school without even being able to read and write. That is a tragedy. It is a waste for them, and it is a tragedy for society, because those people often go on to commit crimes. The statistics show that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and a third of car thefts were carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds when they should have been in school. Not only are they missing out on the education that might get them good jobs, but they are causing an awful lot of problems for society. We must ask ourselves why that is happening.
	I want to touch on another issue that is linked to that problem: special educational needs, which is a subject very close to my heart. There is a very good special educational needs school, called Alderman Knight, in my constituency. Its pupils are frequently physically handicapped, but they also have learning and behavioural difficulties. That school does an excellent job. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)—who also declines to hear my speech at the moment—visited that school not long ago, and she was very impressed by what she saw. I ask the Minister to visit that school, too, because it is under threat of closure. Gloucestershire county council is not Conservative run. I do not seek to make a party political point, but it is run by an unholy Lib-Lab pact.

John Pugh: Was that not a party political point?

Laurence Robertson: It was not a party political point at all. Gloucestershire county council wants to close that school. It has already closed one special school in Gloucestershire—Bownham Park, Stroud—and it has two further schools on the agenda for closure. A former Minister who dealt with special education told me that the Government's reforms and proposals should not be seen as a green light to the closure of special schools—okay—but why is it happening?
	I ask the Minister to come to Gloucestershire to visit Alderman Knight school and to look the teachers, parents and, more importantly, the pupils in the eye and tell them that he thinks that that school should close. I do not believe that his heart is cold enough to do that. I know a number of Labour Members—perhaps I have had a drink with them downstairs, gone on trips with them and perhaps even gone horse racing with them—and I know that they would not want that school to close, so why has Gloucestershire county council got that agenda? Why is it allowed to get away with that?
	Special educational needs is a big issue in itself, but the wider point that I want to make is that such closures will not help to reduce the number of people who are missing out on education. The Government said that they have an inclusion policy. Yes, a lot of people with special needs can be included in mainstream schools, but very many cannot. I ask the Minister to consider that very important point.

Jeff Ennis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. There is no doubt that 14-to-19 education is being increasingly portrayed as the missing link in extending access to higher education. I say that because currently 90 per cent. of students who gain two or more A-levels go on to higher education before they are 21. However, only 19 per cent. of them come from the lower socio-economic groups, as opposed to 43 per cent. from the higher groups. Additionally, for generations now, the prevailing attitude in education has been "academic good, vocational bad." That attitude must change, and I am delighted that the White Paper advocates how that can best be achieved.
	I am sure that the Minister will recall the Adjournment debate on education in the coalfields that I initiated just before Christmas, in which I quoted the report, entitled "Patterns of educational achievement in the British coalfields", produced by Sheffield Hallam university in 2000.
	The four main findings of the research that I drew to the House's attention were as follows. First and foremost, the proportion of pupils achieving five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C is 7 to 10 percentage points below the national average. Secondly, educational achievement in the coalfields tails off badly in the mid-teen years between the ages of 14 and 16. In primary schools, the gap between performance in the coalfields and the national average is relatively small and has tended to narrow over time. Thirdly, there is no evidence that performance in the mid-teen years relative to the national average is getting any better. Lastly, even among those staying on in full-time education beyond 16, performance in the coalfields still lags behind the rest of the country. That coalfields case study underlines exactly why we need to get a firm grip on the 14-to-19 agenda.
	One of the major initiatives that the Government have embarked upon to improve attainment in secondary schools has been the development of specialist schools status. I am glad about the recent announcement that will give all secondary schools the opportunity to apply for specialist school status. This week, I was even more delighted with the news that Ridgewood school in Scawsby, in Doncaster in my constituency, has become one of the first four engineering specialist schools in the country. I am also delighted that the Government are creating two new specialisms of humanities and music as from October this year. It is also good news that rural schools will be allowed to incorporate a rural dimension into their chosen specialist bid.
	Another important Government initiative that has been extremely successful in my constituency is the Barnsley education action zone. The Barnsley EAZ, which was set up in 1998, was one of the first 12 in the country. It contained 21 schools—three secondary schools, 16 primary schools, one special school and one nursery school. In the EAZ, the number of seven-year-olds who read to the expected standard has increased by 12 per cent., compared with the national average increase of 4 per cent., in the past three years, and there are similar figures for 11-year-olds. There has been a 16 per cent. rise in the number of young people doing well at that age, although the effects are less marked at secondary level than at primary level.
	That brings us back to why we must positively address the 14-to-19 issue. What we need to do can be showcased by my experience as a governor at Willowgarth high school in Grimethorpe, which is part of the EAZ. I declare an interest in that context. Although Willowgarth is a very deprived school—36 per cent. of the pupils are entitled to free school meals—its improvement has been greater than EAZ average. It has moved from a dismal record of 13 per cent. of pupils gaining five A to C passes in 1998 to 35 per cent. gaining five good passes in 2001—a remarkable increase of almost 200 per cent. in its success rate in less than four years. Before the EAZ was established, Willowgarth never came higher than 12th out of the 14 secondary schools in Barnsley in its record of achievement. It is now fifth out of the 14—an incredible performance that speaks for itself.
	Another important feature of Willowgarth's success is the fact that 35 per cent. of pupils who left the school last year were accredited with work-related key skills. Some 90 per cent. of pupils leaving in 2001 did so with an accredited information and communications technology—ICT—qualification, in the form of a GCSE pass or a GNVQ, which helps better to equip children for the world of work. In my opinion, the main reason why the EAZ has been so successful at Willowgarth is the broadening of the curriculum to include more GNVQs and the extension of the school day to support targeted students. The EAZ staff have provided that support, which is vital to continuing educational success in the coalfield communities. The excellence in cities initiative, which now largely supersedes many EAZs, is especially important. Willowgarth intends to bid for technology school status, and I commend the school to the Minister.
	Barnsley and Doncaster have benefited in recent years from education maintenance allowances, which have made a difference to the staying-on rates. I am pleased that the Government have decided to provide them nationally from September 2004. I want to make a positive suggestion about them. We should track the students who qualify for EMAs to ensure that the allowances have the desired effect. I should also like the Government to consider extending the EMA to higher education instead of the maintenance grant. That would mean seamless movement from the junior to the senior EMA. We should pitch it at £1,500 rather than £1,000.
	It is great news that we are going to discard the unhelpful distinction between vocational and academic GCSEs and A-levels, and that more vocational GCSEs will be created. I am also pleased about expanding the modern apprenticeships, which have been successful in Barnsley in the past.
	If we are to achieve the aims that the document on education for 14 to 19-year-olds sets out, the agenda must be partnership driven. No school is an island. Each school and every partner organisation must work together to bring out the best teaching from schools, colleges and work-based learning provision. It will require local education authorities to play an enhanced role, working in tandem with all secondary schools and the local learning and skills council. The role of LSCs has not been mentioned sufficiently.
	In areas of high economic deprivation such as Barnsley and Doncaster, it is also essential to involve the local economic regeneration forums to ensure that local vocational courses accurately reflect local business requirements. Learning and skills councils have a major co-ordination role to play with local schools, further education colleges and universities. A more collegiate approach should be established between specialist and non-specialist schools.
	To overturn the inadequacies of our secondary school system, we must create educational opportunities for all. The new specialist school system needs to be part of an overall network of educational provision in a local education authority. Every school should have a distinctive part to play, and schools should complement rather than compete with each other.
	To achieve such inter-school co-operation, the Department must make school transport a greater priority. For too long, the Department has adopted the attitude that transport is the sole responsibility of the LEA. It must play a much more positive role in assisting LEAs to develop imaginative school transport policies, such as those that Select Committee members witnessed in Birmingham last year.
	Before I finish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be able to finish because he has had his 10 minutes.

Mark Hoban: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). My family is rooted in the coalfield communities of east Durham and I therefore know the importance of education for the self-improvement and advancement of those who live in such areas.
	I was enticed to speak in the debate through a series of conversations in the past six months with constituents and employers about the importance of vocational and technical education. The evident lack of skills in south-east Hampshire shows the need for enhanced skills. For example, the director of a listed company in Hampshire who is approaching retirement has chosen to do plumbing at a night class. That is not because he wants a second career, but because he wants the skill to do his own plumbing work. Hon. Members might have thought that we should be training younger people to do those jobs.
	To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), there is clearly a relationship between a lack of numeracy, literacy and technical skills and problems in communities. My hon. Friend mentioned the educational attainment of people in prisons. Last summer, I spoke to people who worked in a jobcentre in Fareham. They said that many young people—especially men—who were coming on to the job market but were finding it difficult to find a job had poor literacy and numeracy skills. I also spoke to people at a local housing association who had found that, among their tenants, it was the young men who were the most in need of skills training but the least willing to receive it.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned the 9 per cent. of people who leave school without qualifications. Some young people are disaffected with schooling, resulting in high levels of absenteeism or truanting. They are missing out on the skills training that they need if they are to play a part in society.
	Part of the problem lies in the way in which we present education to our young people in schools. There is too great an emphasis on the merits of academic education, to the exclusion of other skills in other areas. The Government make great play of achieving 50 per cent. participation in higher education among 18 to 22-year-olds. To those who are not academically able, that gives the impression that vocational training is second rate. No parity of esteem exists for academic and vocational education—which reminds one of the binary divide between polytechnics and universities, which the Conservative Government abolished. We have to have that parity of esteem so that people acknowledge the value of vocational education and so that people who are disaffected with education, or disengaged from it, can see the point of it.
	To improve vocational education, we must have greater co-operation between the school sector and the further education sector. As the Minister said earlier, we must ensure that local provision of training matches the needs of the community. It was therefore disappointing to read in the Ofsted report that came out earlier this month that
	"Area-wide inspections are showing that it has so far proved hard to establish a clear strategy,"—
	in further education—
	"based on a detailed analysis of local need, for offering a coherent range of courses across the attainment range".
	A great deal of work clearly needs to be done within the further education sector to improve the provision of courses. The needs of the local business community must be considered before it is decided what vocational training should be offered. People who finish vocational training—either at school at the age of 16, or in post-16 education—have to be able to see that their training has value. There have to be employment opportunities at the end of it. The skills that the business community needs must be matched to the skills that are taught in the local FE colleges.
	We have to look beyond the provision of training courses by the FE sector. There could be other providers, such as businesses. I draw the attention of the House to a scheme in south-east Hampshire, where HMS Sultan, which is a training establishment for the Royal Navy, is offering one-year residential courses for people taking part in a modern apprenticeship scheme. That has received many positive comments from employers. They have found that the young men and women who left school at 16 and who have gone on the residential course for a year come out of the process much more mature and better equipped for the world of work than they were a year earlier. We need to offer more diverse provision to ensure that we give young adults good vocational training and good training in life skills. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) mentioned the importance of teaching young adults the skills that they need to live as well as the skills that they need to work.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to workplace training. The Ofsted report was critical of the quality of that training, and it is important that the young people who receive training in the workplace find that it is of good quality. Therefore, the learning and skills councils, the FE colleges and commercial training providers must work together. In my area, much of the vocational training in the Navy is provided by a commercial company, Flagship Training, which is part of Vosper Thorneycroft. It is recognised by the Learning and Skills Council as providing good quality training to apprentices in the area.
	The Ofsted report mentions failings in vocational training, the FE sector and workplace training, but it sets a benchmark as to where we should be. If we are to bring about parity of esteem for vocational and academic training, it is clear that we need to make significant improvements in the way in which courses are provided and taught. Young people who are currently disaffected with education should enjoy training courses that are equally as good as the academic courses that their peers receive elsewhere.
	The Government and those involved in education face the challenge of ensuring that children and young adults receive the right level of education in good quality courses, so that they are motivated and understand that they have a role in society. They should see that society has something to offer them and that they have something to offer to society. That is how we can tackle the problems that the country faces from the disengagement of young people—particularly young men—in our local communities.

Ann Cryer: I have lost count of the number of my hon. Friends who have opened speeches on education with the words, "I was the first person in my family to go to university." I can do better than that. I was the first person in my family to go, at the age of 15, to work in an office. That was regarded as a great achievement. I did not go into the factory where my aunties and father had worked. Like the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), I did not go to university and that perhaps makes me all the more sensitive about those who fail in education or who are failed by it. I am not sure which it is.
	In the past 15 years, I have had an abiding concern for the academic underachievement of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. That underachievement stems from the fact that young husbands and wives have come here from the subcontinent and do not speak English. If the learning and skills councils do not tackle that problem and teach them English to a good level, they will not speak it in their homes. Consequently, their children will go to school without knowing any English and that will set back their academic and working lives. Without the essential knowledge of English, they will not progress.
	Because of the anxiety that I have had for more than 15 years, I decided to ring a couple of schools in my constituency to prepare for this debate. Although I could not get hold of them directly, my assistant rang the two schools in my constituency with the largest number of Asian children.
	I was delighted to learn from the deputy head teacher of the first school that although a large number of girls used to disappear because they were taken back to Pakistan or kept at home, the problem has now been solved. By working hard with the parents, the school is getting over such problems. By and large, girls are staying at school longer to do A-levels and to go on to higher education. The problem of girls disappearing was a problem at that school, so I am pleased that things have changed.
	The deputy head teacher told me that although the girls are doing well, there is a problem with Asian boys, who are not doing so well. She also told me that there was a problem with white families who are on the move. I am talking not about travellers but about families who constantly move from town to town and school to school. Their children are difficult to teach and it is hard for them to do well at school. Apparently, one family with eight children had moved so often that they had lost track of where they had lived. As a result, the children were poor academic achievers.
	I phoned the other school, which also has many Asian children. One of the teachers was good enough to send me a fax that summarised the teaching situation with regard to Asian girls. The fax sets out a good analysis of the problems and I am pleased that the school is moving in the right direction. The fax says:
	"As a general rule, the families of . . . Asian girl students tend to be very supportive of them staying on to pursue their education to the Sixth Form; and many have done well there, and have gone on to higher education. Bilingual or multilingual students who do not speak English at home often develop later academically than other students of their age".
	So I am pleased with my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on flexibility at 14-plus. Those girls need that flexibility because their lack of English at four gets them off to a late start and they often do not get around to doing A-levels until they are 19 or older.
	The fax goes on to say:
	"so continuing education post 16 can be extremely important. Our experience is that parents"—
	I am talking about Asian parents—
	"are usually very happy to encourage their daughters to stay on as long as they are motivated . . . For a minority of our students there are very difficult issues around the family's wish to arrange a marriage for a daughter before the daughter feels ready for it. This can cause great anxiety for some students, and it has sometimes resulted in a student's education being interrupted sooner than the school would think desirable. Adolescents sometimes find it very hard to stand up to the pressure of family expectations, or even at times to discuss their feelings in an open way with their parents."
	That is, of course, a cross-cultural problem. Teenage children not being able to discuss problems with their parents is common in all cultures. That does have an impact on their education. However, the fax then states:
	"It has to be said that families are sometimes more understanding and supportive in the event than their children give them credit for; but things can and do sometimes go wrong, and in extreme cases we have seen students leaving home and putting themselves at considerable risk because conflicts of this kind have not been resolved within the family."
	The teacher concludes by saying:
	"As a school with a predominantly white staff",
	which is the case in most of my schools,
	"we are in great need of more adult role-models for our Asian students. It would be particularly useful to have more Asian women on our staff in positions of authority and responsibility."
	That goes wider than academia. The Bradford area needs more Asian women who have achieved. They do exist, but I want more so that Asian girls see them as role models for their futures rather than simply marrying at 16 and 17 and leaving the academic world.
	Finally, I draw hon. Members' attention to early-day motion 703 tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It is entitled "BBC 'Hitting Home' Initiative", and states
	"That this House applauds the BBC for their Hitting Home initiative of a week of programmes on television and radio starting on 15 February dedicated to domestic violence"—
	meaning the eradication of domestic violence.
	Schools must be about a bit more than preparing kids for exams. They must be about preparing them for life. From their early years of education until the end of their schooling, they should be shown the importance of gender equality: I can think of nothing more important than that. I am not just being politically correct. It is extremely important for boys in particular to understand that girls are as good, as clever and as capable as they are. They should also be taught to disapprove of bullying, however it takes place. If we can get the message across in schools that bullying is not a good thing, and that girls are at least as good as boys, we shall go a long way towards defeating domestic violence and preventing many young men from perpetrating it later in life.

Chris Grayling: I am delighted to be able to speak on such an important subject. I think there is cross-party consensus on the need to improve things for those aged between 14 and 19, although there may be different approaches and different ideas about how to solve the problems that undoubtedly exist in many schools.
	I want to make four points. The first relates particularly to those between 14 and 16. Notwithstanding what has been said by a number of Members, notably the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I feel that we should be robust enough to be willing to push children into a different educational environment if that is appropriate. It may mean separating classes; it may mean streaming; it may mean creating different environments for different aptitudes. When we talk of pushing kids into the workplace, we must bear in mind the fact that the academics—those who will go on to university—will find themselves in a different educational environment from those in the vocational arena.
	There is ample evidence to suggest that treating children with different skills in different ways does work. I know that Members disagree on the role and the rights and wrongs of grammar schools, but there are some hard facts relating to the teaching of academic children in an environment that is geared to them. In the recent added-value study, grammar schools came out on top; but we know from research carried out last year that they add value particularly in the case of "upper-middle ability" children. There is clear evidence that tailoring education to specific educational needs really works.
	I do not propose to make this a discussion about the rights and wrongs of grammar schools, but I have always felt that the failures of the past were due to the absence of a strong and viable vocational alternative, and a lack of interchangeability. In an intervention earlier, the Minister made an important point about the need for interchangeability between the vocational and educational streams. At no stage should shutters close off one option from another—although that does not mean that the separate streams should not exist.
	I welcomed what was said earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, about the need for a better, stronger, vocational model, and the need to learn from countries that have done well in that regard.
	My second point relates to those aged between 16 and 18. I have made it here before, and will continue to do so. I fear that many of the Government's changes may ultimately undermine sixth forms, and I am still concerned about the long-term commitment of learning and skills councils to investment in them. I will watch carefully to see what happens in the next few years, and will regularly challenge Ministers to ensure that in the understandable drive to strengthen vocational education the strengths of school sixth forms are not undermined and that greater emphasis is not placed on colleges at the expense of sixth forms. Both have a role to play, and sixth forms must not suffer as a result of the changes. On exams for 16 to 18-year-olds, as I pointed out in an intervention, I do not believe that the A-level system was broke. The Government's priority should be to sort out the availability of non-vocational education for young people aged 14 and over. They do not have to focus so much on trying to reform and rehash the A-level system, which has served the country well for a good many years.
	Thirdly, on the vocational pathway, we have heard from Ministers about the desirability of modern apprenticeships and their intention to put pupils into the workplace at a relatively early age. I do not dispute the desirability of apprenticeships or young people gaining experience in the workplace but, as Ministers set out on that strategy, I remind them that the workplace of today, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough suggested, is very different from the workplace of 20 or 30 years ago. We no longer have the large-scale industrial employers who delivered significant numbers of apprenticeships to young people. Speaking from experience, I know that the pressures in the workplace are such that it is difficult to invest enough time in young people for them to gain the skills that they need to benefit from their experience there. Ministers must look extremely careful at the structure of such arrangements to make sure that those pupils are not simply kicking around an office with nothing to do, losing time that could otherwise be spent on education.
	The 18-plus education system has been touched on by Members but its importance needs to be restated. The Government are introducing a 50 per cent. target for the number of pupils who go into higher education, but I am genuinely concerned that in too many cases pupils go into higher education at 18 taking courses that are not suited to the realities of the employment market that they will enter. If we do not tailor training for students aged 18 and above to the labour market, we will end up just putting our young people through university on courses that they may enjoy but which will not help them in professional life. At the end of the process, they will be left saddled with debts that they will struggle to repay, which is wrong.
	I do not agree with arbitrary targets, but if the Government are going to increase the target to 50 per cent., they must know exactly what those students will end up doing. They must look at the future labour market and economic trends; they must try to identify what will be required in future, and must work with schools and colleges to ensure that pupils are going in the right direction. Pupils must not end up taking the wrong courses and achieving the wrong qualifications for the jobs that are available.
	Fourthly, we must be careful to invest in further education as well as higher education, as FE has a vital role to play in developing the skills of the future. FE tends to be available locally, and many student debts are built up because students are away from their home communities. That is desirable for many young people, but we cannot provide universal education away home, however great and enjoyable the university experience, only to leave those kids with huge debts and the wrong qualifications at the end of the process. We have excellent FE colleges in this country, including NESCOT—North East Surrey College of Technology—in my constituency, which is doing first-rate work in developing a variety of skills. It trains the craftspeople of tomorrow as well as equipping people to take degree courses. In future, the role of such colleges, to which people can travel from home, will be as important as that of universities. We must make sure that the drive to get more young people into university does not take place at the expense of high-quality college-based education and training, which may be much more relevant to the labour market than many of our university courses.
	I finish with this thought. If Ministers do not plan their policy for the future against the realities that employers, statisticians and economists say will be the labour market of the future for those kids, none of their targets or strategies will work. I have not yet heard the analysis and the insights to convince me that the Government know where their strategies are going in employment terms.

David Chaytor: I welcome the White Paper wholeheartedly. It responds to the many pressures on our system. For the first time in many years, it sets out a coherent way forward for the 14-to-19 phase of education. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would give us a history of the various failures to strengthen vocational education over the past hundred years. I regret that he did not do so, but my regret was mitigated by the fact that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), in the assumptions that underpinned his opening remarks, gave us living proof of many of those failings. I made a note of the fact that two thirds of his speech was focused entirely on universities and A-levels, which suggests to me that he has not taken on board the thrust of the White Paper on 14-to-19 education.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading impression. I concentrated on those points in order to highlight the fact that the Government are wrong to pursue those priorities. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was in the Chamber. She knows perfectly well, and she can check the record tomorrow, that I said there should be a greater emphasis on FE in the Government's proposals, and that is where they are failing most profoundly.

David Chaytor: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not make his emphasis clearer in his opening remarks. I found it interesting that he seemed to ignore one of the main points of the White Paper, which involves abolishing the distinction between the vocational and the academic. His assumption, clearly expressed, was that universities were for those following an academic path, whereas further education colleges were for those following a vocational path. I found it interesting that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) advanced his criticism that universities were insufficiently academic. There seems to be a schizophrenia deep in the Conservative party about the future of higher education.
	On the academic/vocational divide, one of the most important aspects of the White Paper, which I warmly welcome, is the new language that my hon. Friend proposes—the terms "general" and "specialist". We should no longer use the terms "academic" and "vocational", because for as long as we continue to use them, the question of hierarchy will come into the matter. It is impossible in our political culture for the vocational to be seen to have parity with the academic. The new framework of general and specialist studies is the right way forward. My only regret was that, after the point had been made early in the White Paper, the language was not consistently followed and regressed to the use of "vocational" and "academic" later on.
	On the definition, does the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West really think that a degree in medicine is not vocational? Does he think that a degree in law, physics or management is not vocational? We must challenge outdated, archaic assumptions of what is vocational and what is academic. In the school system, is art not vocational? Given the labour market in which we are living and in which the creative industries are generating more and more jobs, more young people are now involved in the creative industries than were involved in textiles. Are we saying that art is not a vocational subject? I find that bizarre.

Tony McWalter: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as this is the only way I shall get into the debate. Does he agree that subjects such as motor vehicle studies, which is available as a GCSE subject in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK, have a tremendous academic potential for making young people understand certain concepts, and they have that "Wow!" factor that will often get them into a school, whereas they might otherwise be tempted to stay away?

David Chaytor: If it were not for the fact that I want to see the end of the GCSE, I would welcome its extension to motor vehicle studies. The point is—this is another priority in the White Paper—that we need to play down the significance of the GCSE if we want to increase participation rates and encourage stronger interest in lifelong learning among more young people. The GCSE currently acts as a barrier to our doing that, so it is critical that it be gradually given less significance and become a sort of progress check on the way to the age of 19.
	We must also go further and urgently start work on establishing the development of an English baccalaureate—an all-embracing qualifications framework at 19. If we can do that and take into account the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) about the importance of developing a modular structure for such qualifications and a framework for credit accumulation and transfer, we will be on the way to having a school and further education system that will compete with the best in the world. We will find that, in such a modular structure, students will increasingly mix and match subjects such as history, geography, literature, music and art, as well as motor vehicle studies, engineering, hairdressing and hotel management. That will be better for individual students and provide a far better service for those who have traditionally been failed by our education system. It will also provide a better service for those who have traditionally followed an extremely narrow academic curriculum, and it will be for the good of the country as a whole.
	I should like to make one or two extra points. The White Paper's focus on the individual learning plan is crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) expressed concerns about gender equality. In one sense, that issue is changing rapidly, as it is girls who are now racing ahead in our school system. In GCSEs and—I think—A-levels, there are significant improvements in the performance of some groups of girls, if not all groups. However, what concerns me is that the rate of intellectual, physical and emotional development of our young people is hugely variable. The assumption that all young people can take precisely the same form of assessment at the same stage of their lives is misguided. From not only 14 years, but 11, we need a far greater focus on individual guidance and learning plans. I am sure that the flexibility of the new curriculum that is emerging in the White Paper will be an important step forward.
	I want to express two reservations about issues on which the White Paper does not go into sufficient detail. On the institutional arrangements for the development of the 14-to-19 phase, it is a strength of the document that it focuses so much on the curriculum, but it does not say very much about how we will deliver it. The appendix contains a detailed work programme, which is important, but I should like to flag up to my Front-Bench colleagues the concerns expressed in many quarters about the ability of local learning and skills councils to bring about the transformation that we seek. There are concerns about excessive bureaucracy in the LSCs, lack of transparency and decision-making processes. There are also concerns about lack of expertise in the LSCs. We understand the history and the way in which staff were redeployed from the previous bodies, but getting more direct expertise about secondary education and further education into LSCs is a priority.
	Finally, it is crucial that the 14-to-19 phase is now firmly on the agenda, but let us not overlook what happens at the age of 11. The most crucial determinant of many young people's educational future is the school to which they are allocated at 11. I do not want to rise to the bait that was thrown in by several Opposition Members earlier about academic selection at 11, but I hope that the Minister will not be deflected by the first interventions in the debate relating to admissions policies for federations of schools. One of the great ironies is that we have recently announced the establishment of an access regulator for universities. If we had an access regulator for secondary schools, there would be far less need to look at access to universities, because things would follow through automatically.

Tim Boswell: This has been a particularly constructive debate and it has perhaps ranged rather more widely than its narrow remit. Time will not permit me to comment on all the various interesting contributions that have been made, but they have been almost universally constructive. I hope that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) will not think it invidious if I single her out, because I thought that she made the single most important remark of the debate when she reminded us that this was not simply about competitiveness, and that education had a value in itself. We should never forget that, whatever else we say. A fairly common theme running through a number of hon. Members' speeches was the need for greater guidance for all young people; if this issue is complicated for us, it is extremely complicated for them, and they have only one chance to get it right.
	We have no objection in principle to the themes of the White Paper; we find it constructive. The only point that I would make is that there are a number of interlocking interests that are not exactly the same, and Ministers need to be clear when they are pursuing these policies where they are placing the emphasis at any one time, especially if there is any dissonance between them on any particular policy. The first objective is the need for greater flexibility in the system, and we welcome that. We would also welcome better linkages back into key stage 3 and even into primary schools, and forward into the post-secondary experience of university, training or whatever. Coupled with that is the concern to sort out some of the confusion in the present qualifications structure.
	The second objective—again, a proper one—is to tackle the problem of the 10 per cent., or thereabouts, of socially excluded young people, who have probably voted with their feet. We have to remember that they might not even be in school to consider doing GCSE, and we need to start to motivate them earlier, in ways that have been touched on today. The third objective—the endemic one; it has been an issue ever since the Royal Society of Arts report of 1884—is the need to tackle the desperate, deep-seated lack of prestige for vocational education. That need is encapsulated in the words that I remember from civil servant who has now retired, so I think I can quote him. When I once said, very pertly, on receiving a document, "This will require two A-levels, or the equivalent vocational qualifications", he replied, "That, of course, goes without saying, Minister." That said it all.
	Alongside that worry about the vocational gap is the manifest fact that we need people with a vocational education. We have a desperate shortage of them, despite the fact that some modern apprentices are coming through. The Minister may want to advise me on this, but I believe that, at the advanced level, there are not enough. There are far too few, for example, to meet the needs of the construction industry—a subject that we debated recently. We shall be able to fill all the available places with people with craft-based skills, and we also have requirements for those with technician-based skills.
	In the time remaining, I would like to concentrate on a number of points. The first relates to institutional arrangements, and we have not yet mentioned how difficult it will be to put together the 14-to-19 phase. For a start, there is a systemic division at 16, when compulsory schooling ends and post-compulsory schooling, involving voluntary participation in education or training, begins. Secondly, there are structural subdivisions, post-16, between school and further education, which is itself divided into general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and the training arm, along with whatever provisions are blended in between them for the particular individual. There have always been concerns about the anomalies in funding and remuneration in that area, and they have not always been levelled up, even if they are gradually becoming nearer to one another.
	In its briefing, the Association of Colleges referred to concerns that colleges were only receiving the pupils that schools would rather not touch, and that also has a bearing on their concerns about inspections and Ofsted results. It is worried that guidance is still skewed towards keeping pupils in schools and that colleges may not get credit from their local LSCs for involvement in any pre-16 education. Proper concerns also exist about the legal framework. For example, if children under 16 go into college, child protection, liability and health and safety issues may arise.
	Having said all that, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is a powerful experience to encounter a group of 16-year-olds in a further education college who might not have very good GCSEs but who have rediscovered the relevance of education. They have a buzz about them and are motivated not only to do well in their vocational attainment, but to reinvest in their general educational skills. That is a contribution that FE can make to the overall mix. I should also record the fact that there are more A-level students in the FE sector than in sixth forms, but they both matter and we should not create artificial distinctions tonight. We need to draw together the whole offer and make it relevant to the individuals.
	I have scribbled down some possible criteria for a good vocational qualification. They include rigour, even if the assessment style may be different from that for general or academic attainment; occupational relevancy; coherence within the overall curriculum, so there is some understanding that a subject will be offered alongside other subjects; acceptability to teachers, because it needs to be something that they want to deliver; and acceptability to pupils and their parents, because it needs to be something that they wish to study. We must not forget that the pupils will be volunteers for the new subjects.
	The parity of esteem to which we have referred cannot be achieved by fiat or ministerial edict. It will need to be earned, mostly by the qualifications' acceptability to employers. There can, therefore, be no question of tailoring vocational GCSEs to the weaker candidates. Of course, if people do not find it easy to do academic subjects but do well with their hands, that is great. However, that should not mean that the entire qualification is skewed to achieve that. It must be just as relevant for others who may wish to participate.
	A case can be made for strong occupational relevance. I hope that when the sector skills councils are up and running, they will provide a contribution by specifying what is needed and how it should sit alongside other qualifications that may fill up the offer. I have always recognised a certain strain in the GNVQ concept, because it tries to be both academic and vocationally relevant. It is not fully a preparation for work, and was never intended to be so. In some cases, it may be better to offer an GNVQ-type qualification, even pre-16, alongside the appropriate general education.
	None of these proposals will work unless the offering is feasible to deliver—including any assessment—cost-effective and acceptable to the stakeholders. Strangely enough, as vocational education moves further back into the compulsory education years, its marketing effort must be even more developed.
	In conclusion, I wish to make one or two comments on outcomes. Mediaeval Oxbridge would have understood rather more than modern Oxbridge would articulate that all education is, in a sense, vocational, in that it leads to something. What is needed is to get the balance right in terms of ultimate employability. The Association of Colleges expresses some concern that arises out of the experience of Curriculum 2000, with colleges being discouraged by the reaction of universities, which have discounted key skills and taken little account of breadth in their offers and interviews. The association points out that
	"it is crucial that 14-19 developments gain the endorsement of HE and are taken account of in HE offers."
	The business of trying to produce specifications of what is sensible, although not always ideal for the individual, is an important art that we must develop.
	Beyond that issue is the acceptability of qualifications to employers. The market has not been perfect, and what employers want has not always been well articulated. They probably need a range of skills and attainments within the individual, and different kinds of recruits with different attainments across recruiting profiles. However, above all they need closer association with the education system—we cannot go on in silos. At the same time, there needs to be greater flexibility for individuals to tailor their own offers, and to develop beyond their original horizons: if they do well, they should be able to proceed to a degree and become a modern apprentice, for example.
	The two forces are university pull and pupil push, and to be effective they need to operate in the same direction. If Ministers can fashion a strategy for 14 to 19-year-olds that turns words into achievements, they will have our support; indeed, they will be judged by their success, or otherwise, in doing so.

Ivan Lewis: On the whole, the debate has been of a very high standard, and many positive contributions have been made. However, the great contrast was to be found in the contributions of the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West repeated the mistakes that have been made throughout history in our attempts to present vocational education and training.

Graham Brady: rose—

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman articulated a "sheep and goats" model—exactly the model that the Leader of the Opposition announced as Tory party policy on his visit to Holland earlier this week. That is quite astonishing.

Graham Brady: rose—

Ivan Lewis: Unlike the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, the hon. Member for Daventry outlined some principles that could be the basis for consensus in our approach to vocational education and training.

Graham Brady: rose—

Ivan Lewis: As he listed those principles, I scribbled them down simultaneously. Our approach should provide a high-status, high-value route for young people. We must provide a high-quality learning experience that should not be the same learning experience as a general qualification. The experience can be stand-alone, or form part of a mixed learning pathway. It can lead directly to higher education and a vocational route—making nonsense of the 50 per cent. allegation—or to skilled employment. The option must genuinely be for all young people, and not just for disengaged young people.
	In achieving those objectives, we need to put in place a number of component policy building blocks. We must consider the quality of advice, information and guidance; the attitude of parents and how to influence it; the attitude of young people; and employers' human resource policies. Employers say that they want people with vocational skills, yet they still advertise for people with five O-levels. We need to look at the way universities respond to high quality vocational pathways for 14 to 19-year-olds. I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry when he says that no magic wand or White Paper will deliver parity of esteem. What we should seek are the building blocks that converge esteem, and in time, parity of esteem will occur naturally.
	The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West also said that young people take too many exams, and he questioned the virtue of a baccalaureate model. However, an article of 27 August last year, entitled "Tories look at replacing A-levels with baccalaureate", states the following:
	"A-levels are no longer the 'gold standard' they once were, the Conservatives are to argue, as they promise an overhaul of the sixth form curriculum to require students to show greater breadth of knowledge.
	Proposals being discussed by Damian Green, the shadow education secretary, and his team could mean the introduction of extra exam papers in which students would be expected to show ability in subjects they were not specialising in . . . Another option is to extend the international baccalaureate".
	That runs completely counter to today's contribution from someone who is a member of the Conservatives' Front-Bench education team.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a generally positive contribution, as ever. He described me as a good man, and I shall put that in my next focus leaflet in Bury, South. He welcomed a measured approach, and it is absolutely vital that we get it right. We must reassure people about the integrity of the system in the short term, and we must also ensure that we get the reforms right when we deliver them, and as they impact on young people and teachers.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said something that I thought slightly unfair about the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He said that the Tories can say whatever they want, because they will never be in government. That accusation has often been made about the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who also said that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards was in the social exclusion unit. That was only when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thought that my hon. Friend needed extra help to get back on message.
	Many people have spoken about the importance of impartial advice and guidance in respect of the Connexions service. It is important that the service be independent and of high quality. It must be universal, in the sense that all young people have access to it, and it must recognise that some young people need more intensive support than others. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will be pleased to hear that we will be issuing guidance very soon on providing careers guidance from the age of 11. We accept that it needs to start far earlier than 14.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) spoke in an informed and passionate way about opening up opportunities in her constituency. She rightly advocates the tremendous possibilities now available for co-operation between education institutions in localities. Schools can now co-operate with each other, and with local colleges. In the pathfinder projects and the federations that now exist, schools, colleges and employers work together in an integrated way. I am sure that we will look sympathetically on an application from Dewsbury for that type of pathfinder project.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury also referred to the importance of high-quality 16 to 19 provision in her community. She does not want young people to have to leave Dewsbury and go elsewhere for that provision. If it can be demonstrated that those needs are not being met in Dewsbury, there are real opportunities, under the area inspection and area review processes, for resources to be found to create the necessary specialist provision, whether it be part of a FE college or as a stand-alone sixth form college.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury also mentioned the structure of qualifications and the importance of looking at unitisation. I have excellent news for her and other hon. Members: my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has briefed the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and asked them to look at the question of unitisation with regard to qualifications.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) listed the many tremendous initiatives on science that the Government have introduced, but accused us of not having a strategic approach. There may be some legitimacy in that criticism. I invite my hon. Friend to come to the Department to discuss with me how we can develop a more strategic approach—as long as he promises not to summon me before his Select Committee.
	The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said that specialist status was not suitable for schools with a wide academic base. That is extremely offensive to many schools that have achieved or applied for that status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the issue with grammar schools has to do with the effect on standards for all pupils in the relevant localities. It is not about ideological warfare.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) made an excellent speech. She talked vividly about the consequences of failure in terms of people dropping out at 16. We need to remember that dropping out at 16 often leads young people into low-skilled jobs, unemployment or crime, but those young people are also the parents of the future. When they parent their children, they will not instil an understanding of the importance of education—the reason we have so many difficulties in terms of aspirations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North made a strong case for the importance of getting young people engaged in active citizenship and voluntary work as part of a leaving certificate. We are all worried about the disengagement of young people from their communities, and the intergenerational conflict between younger people and their elders. Getting young people involved in community service is extremely important, and it will help with creating the skilled work forces that our public services will need in the future. Young people involved in voluntary work are far more likely to go into such work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) spoke eloquently about the contributions made by different Government initiatives to raising standards in his community, where low aspirations have been a problem for too long. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will look sympathetically on Willowgarth school's application for specialist status.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) made a very eloquent contribution about the importance of getting right the education offered to young people from the ethnic minority communities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North advocated a more individualised approach to learning, which would take into account people's cultural or religious backgrounds and the barriers that they may face in making progress in education.
	We all share a passion for all children to have those opportunities and a programme of learning tailored for their individual needs.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, we shall take motions 3, 4 and 5 together.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
	That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Epsom Common

Chris Grayling: I present a petition on behalf of the Epsom Common Association, concerning the proposal to build a roundabout adjoining Epsom common, a historic area of land on the edge of my constituency.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The petition of the Epsom Common Association.
	Declares that the roundabout access proposed on the B280 (as a second access point to the West Park Site, Epsom) be removed from the relevant planning application by the National Health Service.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons put this matter before the relevant Minister, in order to implement and assist in the future protection of Epsom Common (designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest), by the removal of the said roundabout access from the relevant planning application by the N.H.S.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

LA MON HOUSE HOTEL BOMBING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]

Iris Robinson: I am grateful for this timely opportunity to bring before the House a solemn matter that affects my constituency and which cries out to be addressed.
	On Monday next, when the House will have risen and Members will have returned to their constituencies, people throughout the kingdom will go about their everyday chores, in business, at recreation and in the family. But in many parts of Northern Ireland, people will approach Monday in a very different frame of mind. They are the relatives of those who lost their lives in the La Mon bombing, one of the worst atrocities ever to occur in the Province. They are joined by the surviving victims, and by the many members of our emergency services who experienced the horror that unfolded in the Castlereagh hills on that dismal February evening.
	Monday marks the 25th anniversary of that horrific bombing at the La Mon House Hotel, in Castlereagh, on Friday 17 February 1978. I speak not just as the Member of Parliament for Strangford, the constituency targeted by the Provisional IRA that night, but also as a member of the La Mon Bursary Committee. The committee comprises a representative group of people: relatives of the victims murdered that evening, victims who were injured in the bombing and former members of the emergency services who were involved in the aftermath of that indiscriminate and appalling attack on innocent people.
	We seek, in a positive way, to keep the memory of La Mon alive and in the public domain. I speak not just from the call of duty but as someone who has been touched by the anguish and, yes, the courage of those to whom I shall refer as the "La Mon victims".
	Serving with the La Mon group since its foundation in 1998 has allowed me more fully to comprehend the terrible pain and suffering that the victims experienced that terrible night and which abides with them 25 years later. Although those individuals cope with their pain and carry their burden with great dignity, one of the hardest challenges that they face is living with the knowledge that the Government have failed them by not holding an independent public inquiry to investigate the circumstances of the bombing and to establish where the responsibility lies for planning, directing and carrying out the atrocity. Twelve innocent people were killed in the massacre, and many more were seriously injured.
	The events surrounding that fateful evening in Castlereagh will for ever be imprinted on the minds of the scores of people who escaped from the clutches of death. Some of those injured are still suffering physical pain to this day. Even those fortunate enough to walk away without a physical mark are haunted by the memories of that dreadful night.
	The evening began as a night of celebration. It was a happy get-together for members of the Irish Collie Club and their friends. They had converged on the hotel from around the Province and were in a cheerful mood, looking forward to a pleasant event. They had been allocated a private function room known as the Peacock room.
	If ever there was an apolitical and non-denominational group, that was it. If ever there was an event devoid of any political purpose or content, that was it. Yet through the dark of that evening a group of men descended on the hotel. As they approached they would have heard the laughter from inside. They would have seen the innocent families deep in conversation, and they would have assessed the huge numbers who would be their victims.
	What followed defies human understanding. To plant a conventional bomb at the hotel would undoubtedly have resulted in loss of life or at least certain injury. But the evil executioners of this terrorist act left no margin for doubt as to the outcome of their evening's work.
	The terrorists strapped their explosives to two cans of petrol and attached them to the security grille over the windows of the room. They retreated under the cover of darkness, and no doubt congratulated themselves on their brave act as they journeyed home.
	The massive explosion that resulted sent a sheet of burning petrol through the small function room, incinerating those in its path. In addition, the glass and materials from the explosion shredded the many helpless, innocent and unsuspecting victims.
	Following the bombing, forensic experts had to use scraps of clothing, jewellery and dental charts to undertake the task of identifying many of the guests that evening, such were the heat and ferocity of the blaze.
	It is hard for us to imagine tonight what it was like for the victims. The explosion sent an intense and colossal fireball of blazing petrol raging through the room. It set people alight and fuelled an uncontrollable inferno.
	In the adjoining function room, known as the Gransha room, 400 members and guests of the Northern Ireland Junior Motorcycle club, including almost 100 children, were holding their annual dance, but the guests in the Peacock room took the main force of the bomb. Those who could—men and women, old and young—emerged screaming, with their hair, clothes and bodies on fire and scrambled out of the burning ruin. In addition to the many guests in the hotel that evening, there were in the region of 90 staff on the premises.
	Eye-witnesses told of hotel guests with limbs blown off who must have been dead or who lay dying in the flames, which spread rapidly, as the burning petrol flowed across the floors. By the time the police received the bomb warning and set out for the hotel the doomed building was well alight.
	The IRA killed 12 innocent people that night. Altogether some 33 people were injured, all suffering various degrees of burns. The number of those who to this day live with the mental scars remains unknown.
	In the aftermath of the massacre, republicans sought to deflect criticism by suggesting that it had not been their intention to kill anyone and that the police were responsible for not acting on the warning. The more things change, the more they remain the same. That craven lie—blaming the police for not acting on the warning—grieves the victims.
	The police investigation into the type of bomb used by the IRA found that four times the normal amount of inflammable liquid had been used. Those who planted the bomb at La Mon would have seen through the window, as they attached the bomb, that the room was full of innocent people.
	The death toll included three married couples. Those murdered were Mrs. Christine Lockhart, aged 32; Mrs. Carol Mills, aged 26, and her sister-in-law, Mrs. Sandra Morris, aged 27; Mrs. Sally Cooper and her son-in-law, Thomas Neeson—Sally Cooper was 62, but I do not have an age for her son-in-law—Mr. Paul Nelson, aged 37, and his wife, Dorothy, aged 34; Mr. Gordon Crothers, aged 31, and his wife, Joan, aged 23; Mr. Ian McCracken and his wife, Elizabeth, both aged 25; and, finally, Mr. Daniel Magill, aged 37.
	The minister at the funeral of Gordon and Joan Crothers, who left behind a two-and-a-half-year-old child, made the following comment:
	"What makes men behave in a fashion worse than the animal creation about them? Animals kill only to eat when they are hungry and, within that law, they are clean. But when men kill in wrath, brutally and without mercy and consideration, from some misguided sense of racial hatred, then they are worse than the mad dogs. They are without mercy and deserve none in return."
	I remember the evening of the La Mon bombing only too well. My husband, then a young councillor, visited the site shortly after the explosion and still speaks of the scene of devastation and horror that he witnessed and how even the experienced members of the emergency services were overcome with the enormity and the awfulness of the slaughter and carnage.
	I should like to refer to a newspaper account of an interview with one survivor, Mrs. Lynette Holt, recorded in the Daily Mirror. She describes the IRA attack as follows:
	"I remember a bang and seeing flames all over the dance area, someone pushed me under the table. Then the lights went out. My best friend, Christine Lockhart, was sitting next to me. I don't know what happened to her. I knew if she fell, she wouldn't get up without help because she had an artificial leg. The girl behind me was killed, and my husband, David, was blasted halfway across the room. A man came out onto the dance floor, he was completely on fire . . . like a torch. Then my husband pulled the table off me and shouted at me to come on. I put my hands out to see if I could find Christine. I wanted to drag her towards the kitchen. The smoke and flames were like plastic burning. You couldn't breath. I knew that if I didn't get out I would suffocate. I was in a pitch black cloud of smoke, and all around me were people screaming and panicking. The heat was indescribable. I felt my back was on fire."
	I have given Lynette's description, although I have to point out that it is only one of many such accounts from people who suffered injury or bore the loss of a mother, father, wife, husband, son or daughter. Yet who is listening to these people? Who is allowing them to tell of their pain and suffering? Who is investigating these events and reporting on them? The Police Service of Northern Ireland tells us that the file is open, but those responsible are not even being actively pursued by the police. The families want an inquiry. The Government say that it would not be appropriate. The Minster wrote to me almost a year ago in response to my letter asking for an inquiry, and said:
	"Bloody Sunday for example, was different because where the State's own authorities are concerned, the Government must be sure as it can be of the truth, precisely because in this country we pride ourselves on our democracy and our respect for the law, and on the professionalism and dedication of our security forces."
	That statement might have flowed well from the Minister's pen, but it was received with astonishment by the victims who read it. This, they would tell the House, is precisely why an inquiry is needed.
	The Government's policy in Northern Ireland is to place in government those who represent the organisation that carried out this attack. More than that, the distinct possibility is that a candidate for one of the top Government posts after the next election will be the man who was arrested by the police during their investigation into the bombing, and who is known to have had control over the team responsible for this outrage and carnage. The car that was used in the terrorist attack was hijacked in his area, and those brought before the courts came from his area of command. The Daily Telegraph of 20 February 1978 said in its editorial:
	"One of those now being detained for questioning in connection with last Friday's murders is Gerry Adams, formerly known as the head of the IRAs Belfast Brigade and now described as an active member of provisional Sinn-Fein. If the evidence to support any specific criminal charges against this man is not forthcoming, he will presumably be released to continue in his activities. Can this, as things are now, be right?"
	There are many unanswered questions and many people to be called to account. I believe that the victims of La Mon cannot simply put this chapter behind them until such time as they obtain answers to their questions. There should be no cover-ups and no one should be above the law. The police are certain that the attack was sanctioned and approved by Gerard Adams, who was then in command of those who are known to have carried it out. The extent of his involvement in the planning and directing of the attack also needs to be probed. When the Minister says that
	"the Government must be as sure as it can be of the truth, precisely because in this country we pride ourselves on our democracy"
	I agree with her. Indeed, that is the case regarding the victims of the La Mon bombing. Do the Government not want to be as sure as they can be of the truth of La Mon before advocating that one who it is believed was intimately and directly involved in masterminding and ordering the carnage at La Mon should be placed at the head of our democratic institutions in Northern Ireland? Can the Minister imagine what it must be like for those affected by the La Mon bombing to have to live in Northern Ireland every day and to witness Mr. Adams being elevated and courted by this Government while they live with the loss that he was complicit in causing?
	I am proud to say that Castlereagh borough council, of which I am a member, has supported the La Mon victims committee in all its work, including the development of its bursary scheme. The council has also dedicated a stained glass window in its council chamber to the memory of the 12 innocent victims. The words of the Ulster poet, James Hewitt, are used:
	"You say the name and I see the place—La Mon."
	Although I believe that today is a time for remembrance and for respecting and honouring those who were murdered, we have to do more. None of those people were military or police targets. The Provisional IRA can make no excuses. The La Mon victims were innocent, decent, respectable citizens who were out for a night of enjoyment. As hon. Members would expect, the IRA bombing of La Mon House hotel continues to cause anguish and pain to this day. Those left behind have not forgotten it, and I will certainly not forget them. It is right and proper that that crime against humanity is investigated and the truth made known. We need closure, and to stem the pain and show that the suffering has not been in vain.
	As the victims prepare for the 25th anniversary of the bombing, the Government can show understanding and solidarity with them by announcing an inquiry. Frankly, the relatives and surviving victims are not asking for another farce such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry. They want a simple, legally competent inquiry that allows their questions to be directed to the relevant individuals and conclusions to be reached.
	Is their pain less important than that of the relatives of Bloody Sunday? Are they citizens with lesser rights? Should not the Government take more care to ameliorate the hurt of the innocent victims of terrorism rather than pandering to and appeasing its perpetrators?
	"La Mon—you say the name and I see the place."
	Yet I also see the aftermath. I see the legacy of the bombing on the lives of those it touched. I see the scars on the bodies and the minds. I see the cruel loss of those who have had their loved ones plucked from them. I see the hurt and the injustice. I see decent people crying out to be heard, and those who had courage in the face of adversity now showing courage in the face of obduracy. I see a great and terrible wrong that must be put right.
	In the name of those who cannot speak, I urge the Government to act.

Des Browne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) on securing the debate. She has done us all a service by enabling the House to remember the tragic events of 25 years ago on Monday, when the La Mon House hotel was bombed. I congratulate her on ensuring that the anniversary did not pass unmarked by Parliament.
	As the hon. Lady reminded us, the details of the attack on the La Mon House hotel are horrific. We recall that outrage not only with sorrow but with revulsion. For those to whom the subject is only a faint memory, it was opportune for the hon. Lady to recall the details of the event. It was clear from the manifest emotion that that engendered in her that she feels for the victims and survivors in a very personal way. The bravery that she showed in articulating the story as she did has done us a great service. It was a privilege to be present.
	I intended to refer to the details, but it would be an inappropriate use of the short time that I have left. I do, however, want those present to understand that I know the details of that particularly horrific attack. Reminding myself of them in anticipation of the debate brought home to me the nature of the horror. As Minister for victims, I have had the privilege of hearing many moving stories and meeting many brave people. I would not seek to pick out any individual from among those who have survived or been hurt by this terrible tragedy, but one of the most moving stories of all was from Rita Crawford, who lost her daughter Elizabeth and son-in-law Ian McCracken in this incident. As the hon. Lady reminded us, they were just 25. They were newly married. I met Mrs. Crawford last May during the golden jubilee garden party at Loughry, and I was particularly struck by her dignity and spirit in the face of such overwhelming tragedy. She is a true heroine.
	I have not yet had the privilege of meeting many more of those who were affected by the La Mon House atrocity. I am sure that they will be consistent with my experience throughout Northern Ireland: all victims and survivors of violence over the past 30 years are, in their own way, heroes. They are the people who have paid the price of the violence that has scarred Northern Ireland for the past three decades.

Iris Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Des Browne: I will just finish this point.
	At this time, when there is talk of acts of completion, it is imperative that those who are involved in discussions give the victims of violence their rightful place. I will ensure that that is done. It is a pity that the hon. Lady's party is not represented in some of those discussions, especially in the implementation group for the Belfast agreement, where I intend to hold discussions with politicians in Northern Ireland about victims.

Iris Robinson: Is the Minister aware that, on Sunday at 2.30 pm, Castlereagh borough council will hold a service at St. Finian's church? I am sure that the families would be delighted to have the Minister in attendance, if that were at all possible.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the invitation. I am sure that she will understand that, because of my present responsibilities, my diary is very full. I will have to check what I intend to do this Sunday, but she can rest assured that, if it is at all possible, I will try to be there. However, I have to spend some time with my own family; I know that the hon. Lady will appreciate that, as she has a family herself. If I am unable to be there, it will be for pressing reasons, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will pass on my regards to the people who will be present. My thoughts will be with them on Sunday afternoon.
	On the principal call that the hon. Lady made, I will have to disappoint her. I was not the author of the letter to which she referred. However, my fellow Minister who penned that letter gave the appropriate response at this time to the request for a public inquiry. Having listened carefully to the hon. Lady, I say to her with the greatest respect that the Government have no plans to establish a public inquiry into the tragedy at La Mon House. However, I understand the arguments that she made. In particular, I understand the reference that she made to the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
	In the two minutes remaining, I want to set out in greater detail what was said in that letter. I know that the hon. Lady is a great supporter of our police force, the public prosecution system and the legal system. She holds them up, as I do, as examples of how crime should be pursued. It is because we take such pride in the police and the court system throughout the United Kingdom that we must make every effort to ensure that nothing detracts from the highest standards of behaviour in our police forces and in the administration of justice. There must be nothing questionable in their actions, nothing indefensible in their behaviour, nothing iniquitous and nothing base. That pride in the police and security forces has caused the Government to agree to investigate cases where allegations have been made against them—those very few cases where there has been cause for concern about their actions. We want to trust them; we have to trust them. We must therefore ensure that we are able to trust them. Our police and security forces must be whiter than white. That is why we have these inquiries. They are not designed to punish the police or to make comparisons between the police, the security forces and the other victims of crime. We have a different structure for dealing with such cases. The police investigate, and as the hon. Lady said, the police file is still open.
	If there is additional information and evidence at this remove from the incident, it should be examined by the police. We should not set up inquiries which compete with the police investigations and which somehow suggest that there is something that the police could have done at the time. We know full well that that was not the case. Indeed, at the time, about 100 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were devoted and deployed to the investigation. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, 25 people were arrested, including Gerry Adams. One man was successfully prosecuted and he was given 12 life sentences for the manslaughter of those who died. As the hon. Lady will know, he served more than 15 years in jail.
	It is because we rely on that structure to investigate and to prosecute that the Government do not draw the comparisons that the hon. Lady asks us to do. We do not say the same things about the police force as we say about terrorists. We rightly treat terrorists as criminals and look to the police to investigate them and the courts to punish them. Therefore, we entrust the investigation of the bombing at the Le Mon House hotel to the police.
	The hon. Lady made an implication that, in my respectful submission, is not fair. I do not believe that it would be fair to the men and women of the RUC or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have served and who have continued to serve the people of Northern Ireland so bravely, to have them treated in the same way as we treat the other investigations that we carry out. Conversely, it would not be fair to grant to the terrorists the concern that we give to the security forces and to their standards.
	I deeply regret that that is my response to the hon. Lady. We should not forget the frightful deaths at Le Mon. The House is grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to consider the issue today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Seven o'clock.